Category: Associated Press

CHICAGO — An active-duty soldier who was hit by a stray bullet during a shooting outside the White House announced on Tuesday that he plans to sue the Secret Service over his life-threatening injuries.

Pfc. Benjamin Del Real Jr., 25, was visiting the capital on May 23 and hoping to snap pictures with his sister and father outside the White House when a gunman opened fire. Secret Service fired back, killing the man, and a bullet struck Del Real in the stomach, causing serious injuries that required emergency surgery. Part of his digestive system had to be removed.

Del Real filed notice of a personal injury claim on Tuesday, saying he plans to sue for $25 million under the Federal Tort Claims Act. He accused the Secret Service of botching its response to the shooting and failing to adequately protect him and other bystanders, he and his lawyer, Joseph Murphy, said Tuesday at a news conference.

“I, my father, and Benjamin all feared for our lives, and the moment that I saw Ben bleeding was undoubtedly the scariest moment of my life,” said his sister, Sara Del Real.

The Secret Service has not said whether its agents fired the bullet that struck Del Real. The Metropolitan Police Department said earlier this summer that the ballistics on that bullet had not yet been returned. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Lee Lepe said Tuesday the investigation is ongoing.

Federal law enforcement agencies are generally shielded from legal liability, but there are some exceptions, including some claims of employee negligence.

The Secret Service does not comment on pending litigation, according to Nate Herring, a spokesperson for the Service. He referred questions to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, which did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Del Real, of Salina, Kansas, and his family had spent hours that day touring the National Archives, Arlington Cemetery, and other landmarks before passing by the White House at around 6 p.m. on their way to dinner. Just then, Del Real saw the shooter, about 20 yards closer to a Secret Service outpost, take out a gun and fire several rounds at their booth, prompting agents to return “a hail of gunfire,” Murphy said.

The shooter, 21-year-old Nasire Best, was killed.

Del Real pulled his father to the ground and dragged him behind a concrete barrier, saving his life, but a bullet struck Del Real in the stomach, causing him “life-threatening injuries,” Murphy said. He underwent an emergency surgery, then another two days later to remove the bullet, and is due for a third surgery next month. Doctors had to remove parts of his colon and small intestine.

Del Real, who joined the Army a year and a half ago, said he is “without a doubt, concerned” about his ability to continue a military career.

“He’s a young man, he’s 25 years old, and he’s had part of his digestive system taken out,” Murphy said. “It’s not going to get any better from here.”

KYIV, Ukraine — President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday fired Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi as commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces following days of mass protests in Kyiv and other cities nationwide demanding his removal.

Zelensky appointed Mykhailo Drapatyi as the new army chief, according to a statement on social media. “Our shared wish is one — victory over the enemy and conditions at the front and in pressure on Russia that would force Russia toward peace,” Zelensky said.

The Ukrainian leader said he made the decision after a series of meetings with military commanders. They began shortly after protests broke out demanding the reinstatement of former Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, seen by demonstrators as a driver of military modernization, and the removal of Syrskyi, who they said embodied the army’s old, Soviet-style command culture.

Zelensky thanked Syrskyi for his achievements in Ukraine’s fight against Russia and praised him for the defense of Kyiv and for operations in Kharkiv and Kursk. “I am grateful to Oleksandr Syrskyi and to every one of our warriors for Ukraine’s strong front-line positions,” he said. “I am grateful to Mykhailo Drapatyi for holding that same view.”

On Tuesday, Zelensky separately met with Fedorov and offered him what he called a respected position in government that would unify the country’s technology sector. But it wasn’t clear if Fedorov accepted the offer and whether the latest moves would satisfy protesters and bring peace to the streets.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced questions and protests Tuesday over the U.S. war with Iran, which he estimated has cost $37.5 billion so far, as Republicans prepare a $95 billion GOP budget package to fund the military, along with other White House priorities.

Hegseth provided the new estimate, up from earlier assessments, during a fiery hearing at the Senate Appropriations Committee. Several times, protesters interrupted Hegseth’s opening remarks, which came days after the Pentagon announced that three more American service members have died in the conflict, bringing the death toll to 17, and that more than 100 have been injured since early July.

Hegseth said the supplemental war funding is an “urgent, necessary” injection of money, and with President Donald Trump’s proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget a generational investment in the military.

“Without these funds, we face critical shortfalls,” Hegseth testified.

But Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the panel, warned of “another forever war.”

“This war is now spiraling out of control again,” Murray said in her opening remarks.

Trump “has told us over 40 times now that a deal is near, and the war will be over soon,” she said. ”But now, he’s asking for $70 billion more — and for us to just trust him it’ll all work out fine.”

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins were also testifying before the panel. The proposed budget package includes $60 billion and $12 billion for other national security needs, along with $10 billion for farm aid and $10 billion for voting law changes.

Before the hearing, the White House issued a statement urging support of the budget resolution, “without modification—immediately.”

War funds make up the bulk of the GOP budget plan

War funding makes up the bulk of the GOP’s new budget proposal, one last priority package the Republicans hope to launch before lawmakers recess to campaign for the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. The package aims to help farmers struggling under Trump’s tariffs and to pay for voter law changes that are likely to include new ID requirements, none of it paid for with offsets.

Most Americans continue to disapprove of how Trump is handling Iran, according to an AP-NORC poll. Gas prices have spiked as Iran works to control oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. munitions are running low from the onslaught of American missile strikes and Trump has shifted away from his own campaign promise not to draw the U.S. into prolonged military conflicts.

Nevertheless, Trump has showed no signs of backing off the war, and the Republicans have largely refused to confront his strategy, question his objectives, or use Congress’ power of the purse or war powers authority to halt the conflict.

“The commander in chief and the whole Department of War are working very hard to bring this to a resolution,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson at his weekly news conference Tuesday.

Trump, in a social media post at the start of the week, asked all House Republicans to vote for the budget resolution.

Hegseth faces questions over war and his own leadership

Hegseth appeared before the panel facing a torrent of questions about not only the war, but his own leadership of the department.

Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the committee, opened the hearing saying it’s “deeply troubling” that the Pentagon has blocked or denied promotions to various officers, particularly women and minorities.

“This is likely to discourage well-qualified women and individuals of color from joining our armed forces, thus depriving us of their talent, dedication, and patriotism,” Collins said.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire questioned why Hegseth is asking for more money when the department has not yet spent about half the $150 billion Republicans provided the Pentagon in last year’s big budget bill.

“If you still have $75 billion available, why are you asking the American people to absorb the cost of a war they don’t support?” asked Shaheen, who is also the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

When Hegseth started describing the “historic nature” of Trump’s military strategy, she cut him off.

Hegseth later explained that the rest of last year’s budget package would be spent by September, which is the end of this fiscal year.

Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana was among several senators demanding answers over the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, asking if Iran will impose tolls on what historically has been an open waterway vital to the flow of oil.

Caine said, “That’s a hypothetical question, and I don’t know the answer to that.”

But Kennedy retorted: “Guys, we need straight answers.”

This week, the Senate will consider another war powers resolution, having voted nearly a dozen times to try to halt the conflict. The House has approved a war powers resolution limiting Trump’s ability to wage war, with a few Republicans joining the Democrats to pass the measure, but no resolution has cleared both chambers to be sent to the president’s desk.

Republicans work to pass budget over Democratic objections

The GOP budget proposal is expected to flow through the reconciliation process, which enables the majority to approve the plan on its own, over the objections of Democrats in the minority.

It’s the same lengthy process Republicans used to approve Trump’s big tax cuts bill last summer, as well as Homeland Security money earlier this year.

The proposal is headed toward a House vote this week, which would start the process by instructing various committees to begin drafting the legislation. Johnson can afford only a few defectors from his slim majority.

So far one Republican, Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio, has objected to the budget plan, warning it will pile on to deficits because the new funding is not being offset with spending reductions elsewhere. Other conservative Republicans share those concerns.

GOP senators have so far panned the House budget plan, but are waiting to see if Johnson can kickstart the process with this week’s voting.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to review an Alaska bush pilot’s claims that state authorities have tried to illegally seize his $95,000 airplane after a passenger brought a six-pack of beer on a flight bound for a dry village.

The pilot, Kenneth Jouppi, sued to block his plane’s seizure after he was convicted of an alcohol-related misdemeanor charge. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in the state’s favor that Jouppi’s plane was subject to criminal forfeiture laws.

On Monday, however, the nation’s highest court agreed to hear Jouppi’s case. He argues that taking his 1969 Cessna would violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. Arguments are expected in the fall.

“I’m in my 80s now, and I’ve been fighting this for over a decade because I see it as my duty to ensure that the Bill of Rights actually means something in protecting against government overreach,” Jouppi said in a statement released by his attorneys at the Institute for Justice.

In April 2012, Jouppi was preparing to fly a passenger from Fairbanks to a remote village, Beaver, where alcohol was banned. The passenger had packed beer with other groceries in her luggage. State Police troopers searched Jouppi’s plane before it departed and spotted a six-pack of Budweiser in a shopping bag.

Jouppi, his company, and the passenger were charged with a misdemeanor offense of knowingly transporting an alcoholic beverage into a dry community. The passenger pleaded guilty. A jury convicted Jouppi and the company after a trial. A judge sentenced him to three days in jail.

Jouppi’s attorneys say Alaska’s high court examined his conduct “purely in abstract terms” and didn’t evaluate whether it was part of a broader pattern of criminal activity. And they say it wasn’t.

“Few excessive fines cases will present the issue so sharply; a decision upholding the forfeiture of an airplane for a six-pack is a self-recommending candidate for review,” lawyers from the Institute for Justice wrote in their appeal.

In response, lawyers from the Alaska Attorney General’s office argued that the state Supreme Court’s “fact-bound decision” should be allowed to stand.

“Courts across the country apply a multifactor test to determine whether a fine or forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense,” they wrote. “Jouppi does not claim that the four-part standard applied by the Alaska Supreme Court is wrong, only that the court misapplied settled law by giving too much weight to some factors and not enough weight to others.”

Jouppi’s attorneys argue that the ruling from the state’s highest court conflicts with case law established in other courts, including U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

“The Excessive Fines Clause was built for cases like this,” they said.

Alaska’s attorneys said Jouppi hasn’t shown how punishing him with forfeiture of his plane is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense.”

“Alcohol abuse is a serious problem in rural Alaska, and airplanes are sometimes the only realistic means to commit the crime of alcohol importation,” they wrote.

WASHINGTON — The director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History pushed back Tuesday against a recent White House report that branded the institution’s leadership as radical activists who cannot be trusted.

The testimony from Anthea M. Hartig came as President Donald Trump has engaged in a broad national effort to reshape the stories of America told by cultural institutions controlled or influenced by the federal government and, in particular, to purge diversity, equity, and inclusion elements from those narratives. Many historians are alarmed by the revisionism.

“As we continue to fact check the report, we unwaveringly attest that it does not fairly or accurately characterize the full body of work at the museum,” Hartig told a House Oversight subcommittee. “There is always room for improvement. But I also know the beauty and the inspiration and the expertise that lies in our collections, our exhibits, and our programming.”

Coinciding with the 250th anniversary of American independence, the White House Domestic Policy Council released a report on July Fourth arguing that the museum, a centerpiece of the sprawling Smithsonian complex on the National Mall, doesn’t tell history “in a way that is inspiring, unifying, and worthy of our great republic.”

Republicans on the panel reiterated some of those concerns on Tuesday.

“In the museum’s current telling, history is just an ongoing power struggle between oppressors and the oppressed,” said Rep. Tim Burchett (R., Tenn.). “The report makes clear that the museum’s woke exhibits and materials reflect a broader vision held by the museum leadership.”

Hartig, the first woman to serve as director of the National Museum of American History, said the institution “does not take sides in America’s political debates.” She described the museum’s presentation of the nation’s story as an evolution intended to add voices, not erase history as detractors sometimes argue.

“When historians talk about reframing a traditional narrative, we don’t mean erasing it,” she said. “We mean adding the evidence, the voices, the objects, that earlier tellings left out, so that more Americans can see themselves reflected in the national story.”

The White House report argued that the museum “has refused to celebrate the Nation and its history.”

“It has not created any exhibit dedicated to presenting a general narrative of American history or telling the story of any of our Founding Fathers, the Second Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolutionary War, or the achievement of independence and the establishment of the constitutional rule of law,” the report said.

But the museum opened an exhibit in May dubbed “In Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness” that displays 250 objects throughout the building to celebrate America’s 250th anniversary. The artifacts include the desk used by Thomas Jefferson to draft the Declaration of Independence, a Revolutionary War-era gunboat, and the Star Spangled Banner.

Some Republicans on the panel on Tuesday acknowledged that the museum displays important material related to the anniversary but argued it was challenging to navigate. Rep. Michael Cloud (R., Texas) said he expected references to the Declaration of Independence to be more prominent during a recent visit.

“I’m not saying it’s not there, but it’s hard to find,” he said.

Hartig faced particular scrutiny from Republicans over an exhibit entitled “Girlhood (It’s Complicated),” which included a diary from a 13-year-old exploring issues including gender identity. The museum director said the exhibit, which ran from 2020 through 2023, included a label making clear it was not designed for children.

Hartig’s future as the museum’s director hung over the hearing. Trump last year said he was firing the longtime leader of the National Portrait Gallery, another Smithsonian museum that, like the National Museum of American History, operates independently of the executive branch. The National Portrait Gallery’s director, Kim Sajet, nonetheless stepped down from the museum in the face of the White House pressure.

At one point, Burchett asked Hartig why she should continue in her job. She responded simply that overseeing the museum is “the honor of my career.”

KYIV, Ukraine — One is a tech-savvy drone innovator with no military experience who became Ukraine’s youngest defense minister six months ago and was credited with contributing to successes in defending against Russia’s 4-year-old invasion.

The other is a seasoned, Soviet-trained general more at home with traditional top-down command culture who led Ukraine’s armed forces.

When their personalities and policies clashed, President Volodymyr Zelensky decided one of them had to go as part of a wider government reshuffle. He dismissed the popular young upstart, sparking protests across the country.

A look at the contrasting careers of Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov and commander of Ukraine’s armed forces, Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi.

The youthful face of Ukraine’s drone war

The 35-year-old Fedorov was credited with modernizing Ukraine’s drone program and changed military procurement rules in a crackdown on corruption. He argued that the military establishment was resisting changes demanded by the evolving war with Russia.

The former tech entrepreneur drove forward Ukraine’s innovative drone technology that has recently reshaped the battlefield and has earned the interest of other countries, including the United States, as well as those in Europe and the Middle East.

“We transformed Ukraine into a global tech leader and a defense powerhouse,” he said on social media after he lost his job last week in Zelensky’s government shake-up.

Fedorov also took credit for restricting Russian military access to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet services.

Before becoming defense minister in January, Fedorov headed Ukraine’s digital transformation policies and introduced successful e-government platforms.

Fedorov got that job after running the digital operations of Zelensky’s presidential election campaign in 2019. Before that, he ran a digital marketing company.

After his dismissal, Fedorov publicly accused Syrskyi of blocking military reforms and insisting on a traditional command culture. That criticism echoed complaints from soldiers and veterans over heavy casualties in costly front-line assaults.

Appearing at a news conference in a dark T-shirt and jeans, Fedorov accused Syrskyi of blocking reforms needed because “the war has changed completely” due to new technology.

The Soviet-trained general dubbed ‘the Butcher’

Protesters framed Fedorov’s removal as an example of Zelensky siding in the feud with an entrenched military old guard over a modernizer.

Syrskyi, 60, was born when Ukraine was still part of the USSR. He attended Moscow Higher Military Command School and served in the Soviet Artillery Corps. He has long been associated with a Soviet-style, top-down command culture.

He played a key role in some of Ukraine’s biggest victories in its war, overseeing the successful defense of Kyiv in the early days of the invasion in February 2022. Seven months later, Syrskyi was credited with orchestrating the counteroffensive in the Kharkiv region, one of the most significant Ukrainian victories in the war.

“I’m not fighting the (defense) ministry. I’m fighting Russia,” Syrskyi said in a column published Monday in the Ukrainian military outlet Militarnyi that defended his conduct.

“The General Staff has never opposed the ministry — we have cooperated and will keep cooperating with whichever minister the state appoints. Because in the army, you don’t get to choose who you serve with. In the army, you follow orders and do your job,” he said.

Within the military, Syrskyi earned the nickname of “Butcher,” a label that gained wider currency during his command of the ill-fated defense of Bakhmut, one of the war’s longest battles that killed tens of thousands of people.

His reputation took another hit after the Ukrainian outlet Babel published an investigation last month detailing allegations of abuse within the Skelia assault regiment, a unit closely associated with Syrskyi. It reportedly has suffered higher-than-average losses. The investigation documented dozens of deaths among recruits.

The ouster brings protests in Ukraine, glee in Russia

The protests of Fedorov’s ouster and the backlash against Syrskyi reached into the military, with the air force’s deputy commander resigning and warning it would weaken Ukraine’s air defenses. Veterans and soldiers on leave joined the protests. Many demonstrators said they wanted a new generation of generals who would prioritize preserving soldiers’ lives.

The stakes are high for Zelensky. The outcry appeared to leave him open to accusations that by ousting Fedorov, he was trying to get rid of a possible political rival. The episode threatened to undermine his authority.

Ukrainian political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko called Syrskyi “a more convenient and more comfortable” choice for Zelensky to keep in his government, adding that it turned out to be a “major miscalculation.”

Zelensky “underestimated the extent to which part of Ukrainian society had come to see Fedorov as perhaps the main driver of the positive changes in Ukraine’s war against Russia,” added Fesenko, head of the Penta Center think tank.

Russian war bloggers responded to Fedorov’s dismissal with glee, noting his role in masterminding long-range drone strikes on oil facilities that have caused a fuel crisis and midrange attacks that disrupted military logistics.

Syrskyi, some noted with grudging respect, has built a string of defenses that have stalled Russian advances.

Many Moscow commentators voiced hope that the controversy would fuel political infighting in Ukraine and weaken its military.