Category: Wires

WASHINGTON — FBI Director Kash Patel suggested Tuesday that he was open to sending federal agents to polling places, raising alarms from Democrats that the Trump administration would act aggressively to assert greater control over the coming elections.

The remarks, made during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, stood at odds with earlier comments indicating that he did not intend to send federal agents to polling places around the country. However, when Sen. Peter Welch (D., Vt.) pressed the issue, Patel seemed to reverse course.

“I thought you weren’t going to be sending people to the polls,” Welch said.

“When did you hear that? Just another lie,” Patel declared, raising his voice.

Welch revisited the issue. “So you are sending FBI agents to the polls?”

“We have election crisis coordinators manned at all 56 field offices,” Patel replied, appearing to refer to what are known as election crime coordinators. “Election integrity is of paramount importance. This FBI will not shy away from that effort.”

Under the law, armed federal officers or military personnel are barred from being deployed “at any place where a general or special election is held.” The chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a letter to a Democratic senator last month that there were “no plans” for the armed forces to deploy troops to polling stations for the midterm elections.

As President Donald Trump has ramped up his efforts to cast doubt on the integrity of the vote in an election his party might lose, Democrats have sought assurances from Trump administration officials that they will follow the law, which carries a potential five-year prison sentence for any violations.

The president regularly declares the 2020 election he lost was “rigged,” and has said the only way Democrats can win control of Congress this year is by cheating. The claims have fueled broader concerns that loyalists within the administration may wage a pressure campaign against state officials to produce election results favorable to Trump’s party.

When he was first asked about the issue at the hearing, Patel vowed to “follow the law.”

“If there’s a reason to go there because there’s been a violation, we will, otherwise we won’t,” he added, noting that “we’re going to house our agents and intel analysts in our field offices.”

Historically, the Justice Department used workers at its public integrity unit to consult with prosecutors and agents around the country on sensitive investigative issues around elections. But the Trump administration dismantled that unit last year, leaving it unclear who in the department and the FBI would handle such critical decisions in the final days of the election cycle.

Welch expressed alarm at Patel’s responses, saying they suggested he could harness the power of the federal government to try to affect election outcomes.

“This is about whether the United States citizens — Republicans, Democrats, independents — are the deciders of this election or there is election interference led by the FBI and the Trump administration,” Welch said.

The senator prodded further. “Do you pledge that you will not in any way interfere in the will of the American people when they go to the polls in November?”

Patel sidestepped the issue, saying instead: “I pledge unequivocally that I will not participate in your charade of lies.”

An angry argument ensued, with the pair exchanging attacks. The senator denounced the FBI director as a “panderer” to Trump, and Patel suggested Welch’s personal finances were suspicious.

“Let’s knock it off,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) as he tried to lower the temperature in the hearing room.

It did not work.

“Everybody sees you for the complete and total fraud you are,” Patel said angrily to Welch.

The Vermont senator then challenged Patel over his travel, in which he often combines work with recreational activities. During a trip to Italy, Patel spent time at the Olympics in Milan, during which he was filmed chugging a beer with the men’s hockey team after they won gold.

“I go where I want to go, after delivering the most prolific crime reduction in U.S. history,” Patel said. “What you’ll never understand is the players who are my friends invited me to the locker room.”

Patel was also pressed on whether counterintelligence agents had opened an investigation into how a wealthy Russian oligarch paid for part of the wedding celebrations for Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr.

“It may involve some intelligence degradation, and I would like to know what steps you are taking to investigate,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.).

He added, “I think there’s a potential for compromise in intelligence and also the possibility of improper influence.”

Patel was noncommittal.

“We will look at whatever information comes our way,” he said.

In one of the stranger exchanges, Patel repeatedly fielded questions about bestiality, part of a recent change in FBI policy that loosened hiring standards, including by no longer automatically disqualifying job candidates who have participated in sexual activity with animals. The change, he said, was made out of consideration for people who may have been forced, either as children or sex-trafficking victims, to participate in such conduct.

“We did not want to punish victims of bestiality, victims who were trafficked,” Patel said. While he did not elaborate, there have been cases in which children or others were forced to engage in sex with animals.

Previously, the director said, the FBI had automatically disqualified anyone who had engaged in such conduct, no matter the circumstances. Lawmakers seemed flummoxed by the explanation.

“Either side of what, the bestiality?” Sen. John Kennedy (R., La.) asked. “So you disqualified the animal?”

Patel replied, laughing: “We have great K-9s, but we’re not going to disqualify them.”

At other points, the hearing veered into sniping.

Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) said Patel had acted “like a thug” in using law enforcement agents to subpoena reporters.

“We are not targeting reporters at any point in time,” Patel replied.

“We don’t have an FBI director, we have a lackey here, and frankly not even a good lackey, he’s an incompetent lackey,” Booker said. “This is a mockery and a sham.”

As the two men argued, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) sought to end the exchange.

“Are you done now? Are you ready to shut up?” Grassley growled at Booker.

This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

The popular image of Yemen’s Houthi rebels is of men on the backs of pickup trucks, firing AK-47s into the desert air.

Yet the group has launched long-range missile strikes at Israel, more than 1,000 miles away. The Houthis prey on ship traffic in the Red Sea with naval drones. And evidence points to their growing ambition to use artificial intelligence and other means to produce more advanced weaponry themselves, making them less reliant on their sponsors in Iran.

Although they are backed by Iran, for months the Houthis remained on the sidelines of this year’s fighting in the region. That ended in July, when they declared a maritime blockade on Saudi Arabia. Since then, they have marched south, seizing the historic port city of Mokha last week while capturing islands near the narrow strait known as the Bab el-Mandeb, tightening the group’s grip on the choke point at the southern end of the Red Sea.

“They use every opportunity to build their capability, to test their capability, such that they are now the most lethal nonstate actor in the entire Middle East,” said Timothy A. Lenderking, the former U.S. special envoy for Yemen, speaking at a Middle East Institute forum Friday.

A report by Anthropic last week on the misuse of AI said that “a cell of threat actors based in northern Yemen,” where the Houthis have their stronghold, used Claude for “a sustained effort to develop guided weapons.” Despite Anthropic’s safeguards, the company said, the cell proceeded as far as the test firing of a guided rocket.

The Houthis still rely on their Iranian sponsors for the most sophisticated components in their drones and ballistic missiles, but as the Anthropic report suggested, in recent years they have become much more advanced at building their own weapons systems.

This has given the Houthis greater flexibility to maintain their fight against their Yemeni and Saudi adversaries, attack shipping traffic in the Red Sea, and threaten Israeli and U.S. targets even with the U.S. Navy enforcing a monthslong blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Laboratory of war

The Houthis and their Iranian advisers were already experimenting with uncrewed surface vessels a decade ago. The militant group used a remote-controlled boat loaded with explosives to attack a Saudi frigate all the way back in 2017, killing two people in the process.

After the Houthis captured Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, in 2014, Saudi Arabia led a military coalition propping up the country’s government and fighting back against the militants. A ceasefire was declared in 2022, but experts say the group has used the intervening years to dramatically advance its capabilities.

The truce gave the Houthis time “to regroup, retrain, refit, restock,” Lenderking said.

“The volume of goods being brought into Yemen to make weapons increased exponentially and the number of routes being used increased exponentially after the truce was announced in Yemen in 2022,” said Peter Salisbury, an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, who has studied Houthi weapons manufacturing closely.

At first, Yemen was a laboratory for Iran’s pursuit of warfare. Increasingly, it is the factory, too. Salisbury said that larger parts like missile chassis are fabricated in Houthi-controlled territory rather than sent from Iran.

“Iran and Hezbollah have invested heavily in continuing to up-skill the Houthis in the manufacture and use of weapons,” Salisbury said. “Increasingly they’ve been able to indigenize the production of a lot of things like one-way attack drones.”

According to Farzin Nadimi, a senior fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Iranian defense industry has dedicated design bureaus and factories for weapons systems specifically for proxy forces like the Houthis that are “simple to assemble, simple to move, simple to prepare for launch, and simple to use.”

Resilient supply chains

The Iranians encouraged the Houthis to develop additional supply chains for components from places like China, whose factories supply many of the drone parts used around the world.

“There’s a lot the Houthis don’t need anymore, and the reason they don’t need it anymore is because they’ve been able to use the global black market supply chain to get most of the things they need,” said Kevin Donegan, a former commander of the U.S. 5th Fleet, whose area of responsibility included the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, and who built the first intelligence fusion cell to study Iranian support for the Houthis.

“They do need key components still, especially for the missiles to make them effective,” Donegan said. “They have the ratlines that still can bring those components because they’re not the big pieces.”

Those might include guidance systems, rocket engines, and wing tips and fins that require a higher degree of precision engineering, Salisbury said.

While the U.S. Navy’s blockade focuses on large container ships and tankers, smaller components can be smuggled on medium-size vessels like the traditional dhows plowing the region’s waters. Shipments can be sent directly to Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen, transshipped via the Horn of Africa or even transferred ship to ship in the waters off the coast of Somalia. Salisbury calls it a “giant game of three card monte.”

Increased self-sufficiency is not necessarily the same thing as complete independence from their sponsors in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. “I think they pretty much still need a lot of help from the IRGC,” Nadimi said. He said that he believed there were “significant numbers” of Revolutionary Guard officers involved in the planning and execution of the current phase of the fighting in Yemen.

The need for Iranian advisers and the more advanced components may explain how the renewed fighting in Yemen started this summer in the first place.

A Houthi delegation traveled to Tehran, Iran, in July for the funeral of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. After, they boarded a flight home operated by Iran’s Mahan Air, which is under sanctions imposed by the U.S. government, back to Sanaa.

The Saudis and the Yemeni government believe that the aircraft carried Iranian military personnel and weaponry. When airstrikes prevented the plane from landing at Sanaa International Airport, the flight diverted and managed to land elsewhere in Houthi-controlled territory.

The Houthis then launched retaliatory attacks on Abha International Airport, in the southern part of Saudi Arabia. It was the first Houthi attack on Saudi Arabia since 2022, and began a new and unpredictable phase of fighting, with an adversary that spent years planning and advancing its tactics and technology.

If the Anthropic report is accurate, the group that was using Claude in northern Yemen tried to develop a multistage ballistic missile with a range of more than 1,200 miles and a hypersonic glide vehicle. The would-be weapons designers were careful to avoid the company’s safeguards, hiding the true purpose of the guidance systems they were designing from the very system helping them design it.

Anthropic said there was no evidence that they were successful in “fielding an operational device.” The users queried Claude Code about why their field test had failed. “Nevertheless, we have evidence that the actors had already built an offline simulation tool kit that does not rely on Claude,” the report said.

Recent history suggests they will keep working to improve their capabilities.

“Keep in mind that the Houthis are always on the move,” said Lenderking, the former U.S. envoy. “They’re extremely entrepreneurial.”

This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

The United States has stationed weapons in Earth’s orbit, Air Force Secretary Troy E. Meink said Monday, the first such public acknowledgment by a Pentagon official after years of preparations to counter potential deployments by Russia and China.

“We are increasing readiness against existing threats, and the United States has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the Joint Force against hostile adversary action,” he said at a convention in Maryland, according to a news release published on the Air Force’s website.

Meink did not provide details about the type of weapons or say when they had been deployed. He made his remarks in a keynote speech at the Air, Space, and Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Md., an annual forum hosted by the Air and Space Forces Association, a nonprofit organization for members of both services.

The Space Force did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Monday.

The Pentagon has long feared that China and Russia are making advances in space operations that could threaten U.S. ground forces as well as U.S. satellites.

Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, said Tuesday in response to a question about Meink’s comments that China opposed an “outer space arms race.”

“We urge the U.S. side to stop expanding its military force and preparing for war in outer space,” he said in a regular news briefing.

In 2024, the New York Times reported that U.S. intelligence agencies had raised concerns that Russia could be planning to put a nuclear weapon in space, a threat that could disrupt satellite networks that are vital to everything from communications to military operations.

Shortly after President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year, he signed an executive order to expand U.S. air defenses, including the development and deployment of “space-based interceptors.” The project, named the Golden Dome, would be designed to guard against weapons such as hypersonic missiles, which Russia has deployed in Ukraine.

In May, Trump said that Gen. Michael Guetlein, vice chief of space operations at the Space Force, would oversee the project.

The United States, Russia, and China began testing weapons capable of destroying satellites decades ago, but the United States has since disavowed such arms because they leave destructive debris fields in orbit.

In recent years, the Air Force started developing “low-debris-causing weapons” capable of disrupting or disabling enemy satellites, Frank Kendall, who served as Air Force secretary under President Joe Biden, told the Times in a 2024 interview.

Gen. Chance Saltzman, who served as the Space Force’s chief of space operations during the Biden and second Trump administrations until his retirement last month, told a Senate committee in 2023 that the new space weapons systems would be fully operational by 2026.

Neither Kendall nor Saltzman specified how the systems would work. Other former Pentagon officials have said they likely would include lasers, high-powered microwave systems, or even U.S. satellites that can grab or move enemy satellites.

Kendall said in 2024 that it was prudent to recognize that space “is a place that can be used for military advantage.”

“The threat is there,” he said at the time. “It’s a domain we have to be competitive in.”

This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has not been eager to tangle with President Donald Trump. For much of his second term, the court seemed to have settled on a strategy of deference, ducking, and delay.

But sometimes the court put its foot down. It did so Monday night in rejecting Trump’s plan to make it harder to vote by mail by having the Postal Service screen mail ballots and determine which ones it would deliver.

Election administrators of both parties were mystified and alarmed by the plan, which they said would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters. Just three weeks ago, the court’s conservative majority deferred a decision on the matter, saying it was not yet ripe.

That punt, the court’s unsigned ruling said, did not mean it would approve the plan in the end. “On that score,” the majority wrote, “time will tell.”

That time arrived Monday, and the message was clear. The majority blocked the plan, saying it was most likely unlawful.

“There aren’t five votes for abject chaos,” said Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.

Trump, for his part, reacted to the decision with fury, lashing out at his three appointees, none of whom noted a dissent.

“This Supreme Court is bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years,” he wrote Tuesday morning on social media. “These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves.”

The decision on mail ballots is part of a pattern. The Trump administration met with overwhelming success in some 30 emergency applications to the Supreme Court since the president’s second term began, on what critics call its shadow docket. Those decisions were nominally provisional, but they often delivered lasting victories to the president.

In rushed proceedings that mostly yielded decisions with scant or no reasoning, the court divided along partisan lines much more often than in cases on the court’s so-called merits docket, which require full briefing, oral arguments, and in-person deliberations.

The theme of those emergency rulings was deference to presidential power.

But the tide started to turn in December, when the court refused to allow the deployment of the National Guard in Illinois over the objection of local officials.

The rebukes continued in the term that ended in June.

The court rejected the centerpiece of Trump’s beloved tariffs program, leading to refunds of many billions of dollars in illegal levies. It also thwarted Trump’s attempt to fire a Fed governor and disagreed with his interpretation of a law that he said barred counting some ballots received after Election Day.

After a preliminary ruling last year limiting the power of lower courts to order relief in a case that arose in the context of birthright citizenship — at the time perceived as a major victory for Trump — the court this summer returned to address the citizenship question directly. This time, it dealt Trump a stinging loss, ruling that his executive order seeking to curtail automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States violated the Constitution.

The majority opinion about mail-in balloting Monday was just three sentences long, but it went further than it might have. Instead of ruling merely that the administration’s plan had been rolled out too close to the November election, a conclusion that might have suggested Trump might still win in the end, the majority signaled that the government was likely to lose on the merits.

That move was at odds with one of Chief Justice John Roberts’ judicial touchstones. “If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case,” he wrote in 2022, “then it is necessary not to decide more.”

All the court had to do to block the postal regulation was to say it would cause more harm than good in the current election cycle, Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, wrote in a blog post Monday night.

“But the chief justice didn’t want this case to come back, so he reached the merits,” Blackman wrote. “If there is no need to decide more, the court should not decide more. Except when Trump is involved.”

That approach may be a response to the fire hose of executive orders, programs, initiatives, dodges, and feints from the Trump administration that have threatened to overwhelm and outpace the courts. However significant Trump’s losses in the Supreme Court may have been, he remains hard to constrain by a judicial system used to moving at a stately pace.

The vote count in Monday’s ruling was not disclosed, but only Justice Samuel Alito, appointed by President George W. Bush, and Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, publicly dissented.

Those two justices are the most reliable votes for Trump’s agenda, while the court’s three Democratic appointees seldom vote for the president. That leaves the three Trump appointees and the chief justice, who was appointed by George W. Bush, at the court’s center.

If the court is to check Trump in the typical case, then, at least one of his appointees must vote against him. And that has now happened in a series of major clashes.

“This is not a MAGA court,” Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who served as solicitor general in the Obama administration, said at a briefing for reporters Tuesday at Georgetown University Law Center.

The practical consequences of the court’s ruling are a mixed bag, election administrators said.

“The feeling of relief here is palpable,” Marybeth Kuznik, the director of elections in Fayette County, Pa., said on an email forum for election law specialists. Still, she added, “with all the hullabaloo in the media, voters have become alarmed and many are afraid their mail-in votes may not be counted no matter what the ruling may be.”

There was another election-related ruling last week, about an attempt to redraw Missouri’s voting map to give Republicans an advantage in the midterm elections. It also took two trips to the Supreme Court to resolve. Over the administration’s objections and without public dissent, the court rejected the map.

Yet another election-related application from the administration is pending at the court. It asks the justices to allow the use of a government database that includes Social Security information to help verify whether potential voters are citizens. It is another example of the administration’s everything-all-at-once approach.

Still, the combination of the Missouri ruling and the one Monday on the postal regulations sent a message for the coming election, Levitt said.

“The court is effectively done with actors making sizable last-minute changes,” he said. “The rules are now what they are, and the election is going to be — as it should be — up to the voters.”

This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles County district attorney said Tuesday that his office would not seek the death penalty in the double murder case against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, Hollywood director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

Nathan J. Hochman, the district attorney, said in a news conference before a hearing in the case that the decision was made after “a rigorous review, where we look at the aggravating factors as well as the mitigating factors.”

Hochman said the district attorney’s office had spoken with the victims’ family, prosecutors, and law enforcement.

“We did speak with Nick Reiner’s siblings,” he said, referring to Jake and Romy Reiner. “They made their views very clear. We took their views into consideration in ultimately deciding not to seek the death penalty.”

If Reiner, 33, is convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. No trial date has been set.

Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner were found dead inside their home in the Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles in December. A grand jury indicted Nick Reiner on two counts of first-degree murder, to which he has pleaded not guilty.

Reiner has been charged with murder under special circumstances — including the fact that there were multiple killings — which meant prosecutors could seek the death penalty. Other special circumstances included in the indictment were the allegations that he committed the murders “by means of lying in wait” and with a dangerous and deadly weapon, a knife.

A public defender representing Reiner did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Reiner has been trying to gain access to a $1.6 million family trust fund so he can hire a private lawyer, but he has faced opposition from a financial steward who cited California’s “slayer statute.” The statute blocks people from inheriting money from someone they “feloniously and intentionally” kill.

Reiner has a history of serious mental illness and drug addiction. He has been diagnosed at different times with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, according to people familiar with the situation, and was placed into a yearlong mental health conservatorship in 2020. One of those people told the New York Times that Reiner had been struggling in the weeks before his arrest with a change in his medication.

Few details have been shared publicly about what the authorities believe led to the killings and what Reiner’s motive could have been. A judge has issued a protective order, barring prosecutors or defense lawyers from releasing any discovery materials.

Jake and Romy Reiner were both listed on the witness list for grand jury proceedings in July. In an interview with ABC that was broadcast last month, Jake Reiner recalled the discovery of his parents’ killings on Dec. 14, 2025, when his sister called him in distress.

“Romy told me our dad was dead,” he said in the interview, “and then she said, ‘I can’t find mom.’”

He declined to say whether he was surprised when he learned that his brother was considered the prime suspect.

“I’ll never understand,” he said. “I don’t care how it’s explained to me, I don’t care what facts come out. I will never understand why this happened.”

This article originally appeared in the New York Times.