Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Federal judge says Trump administration must restore disaster money to Democratic states

Published

on

Federal judge says Trump administration must restore disaster money to Democratic states

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to reallocate federal Homeland Security funding away from states that refuse to cooperate with certain federal immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy’s ruling on Monday solidified a win for the coalition of 12 attorneys general that sued the administration earlier this year after being alerted that their states would receive drastically reduced federal grants due to their “sanctuary” jurisdictions.

In total, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency reduced more than $233 million from Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The money is part of a $1 billion program where allocations are supposed to be based on assessed risks, with states then largely passing most of the money on to police and fire departments.

The cuts were unveiled shortly after a separate federal judge in a different legal challenge ruled it was unconstitutional for the federal government to require states to cooperate on immigration enforcement actions to get FEMA disaster funding.

In her 48-page ruling, McElroy found that the federal government was weighing states’ police on federal immigration enforcement on whether to reduce federal funding for the Homeland Security Grant Program and others.

Stay up to date with the news and the best of AP by following our WhatsApp channel.

Follow on WhatsApp

“What else could defendants’ decisions to cut funding to specific counterterrorism programming by conspicuous round numbered amounts — including by slashing off the millions-place digits of awarded sums — be if not arbitrary and capricious? Neither a law degree nor a degree in mathematics is required to deduce that no plausible, rational formula could produce this result,” McElroy wrote.

The Trump-appointed judge then ordered the Department of Homeland Security to restore the previously announced funding allocations to the plaintiff states.

“Defendants’ wanton abuse of their role in federal grant administration is particularly troublesome given the fact that they have been entrusted with a most solemn duty: safeguarding our nation and its citizens,” McElroy wrote. “While the intricacies of administrative law and the terms and conditions on federal grants may seem abstract to some, the funding at issue here supports vital counterterrorism and law enforcement programs.”

McElroy notably cited the recent Brown University attack, where a gunman killed two students and injured nine others, as an event where the $1 billion federal program would be vital in responding to such a tragedy.

“To hold hostage funding for programs like these based solely on what appear to be defendants’ political whims is unconscionable and, at least here, unlawful,” the Rhode Island-based judge wrote in her ruling, issued little more than a week after the Brown shooting.

DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that the department plans on fighting the order.

“This judicial sabotage threatens the safety of our states, counties, towns, and weakens the entire nation,” McLaughlin said. “We will fight to restore these critical reforms and protect American lives.”

Meanwhile, attorneys general who sued the administration applauded the order.

“This victory ensures that the Trump Administration cannot punish states that refuse to help carry out its cruel immigration agenda, particularly by denying them lifesaving funding that helps prepare for and respond to disasters and emergencies,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell in a statement.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

U.S. launches fresh strikes on ISIS targets in Syria

Published

on

U.S. launches fresh strikes on ISIS targets in Syria

The U.S. has carried out “large-scale strikes” against multiple Islamic State targets in Syria along with partner forces, U.S. Central Command said on Saturday.

The attack is a part of an operation launched on Dec. 19, when U.S. forces struck “more than 70 targets” in central Syria as retaliation for the killing of three Americans by an ISIS gunman in early December.

“The strikes today targeted ISIS throughout Syria as part of our ongoing commitment to root out Islamic terrorism against our warfighters, prevent future attacks, and protect American and partner forces in the region,” CENTCOM said in a statement.

Tom Barrack, the Trump administration’s special envoy for Syria, announced on Saturday that he met with Syria’s new leadership in Damascus “to discuss recent developments in Aleppo and the broader path forward for Syria’s historic transition.”

The deadly attack in December marked the first fatalities of U.S. troops in the country since former President Bashar al-Assad was ousted last year. Three other U.S. service members were injured in the attack in December, and a state-run news agency reported that two members of the Syrian security forces were also wounded.

President Donald Trump said at the time that the attack by ISIS took place “in a very dangerous part of Syria, that is not fully controlled by them.” He also said Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, whom he had met in November at the White House, was “extremely angry and disturbed by this attack.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said last month that the operation was “a declaration of vengeance” over the deaths of the American service members.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

When it comes to ICE encounters, what are the rules — and your rights?

Published

on

When it comes to ICE encounters, what are the rules — and your rights?

In the wake of Renee Nicole Good’s death, Americans are asking, with heightened urgency, what authority ICE and CBP agents have when they engage with U.S. citizens. And as with many areas of the law, the answer is largely, “It depends.”

Can ICE use deadly force on U.S. citizens – or ever?

When it comes to the use of force, and specifically, the use of firearms, ICE has its own specific policy that was last updated in 2023. That policy was filed in the Chicago-area litigation over ICE and CBP’s treatment of protesters, clergy, and journalists. (Interestingly, on ICE’s website, that same policy is almost entirely redacted.) This policy does not vary depending on the subject’s immigration or citizenship status. Here’s what it says:

First, the policy authorizes the use of force “only when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist and may use only the level of force that is objectively reasonable in light of the totality of facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the time force is applied.” But the policy is equally clear that an officer does not have to meet force with equal or lesser force, does not have to wait for an attack before using force, and does not have any duty to retreat to avoid the reasonable use of force.

Second, where feasible and without creating any greater threat to his own safety or that of others, an ICE officer must attempt to “de-escalate by the use of communication or other techniques during an encounter to stabilize, slow, or reduce the intensity of a potentially violent situation without using physical force, or with a reduction in force.”

Third, ICE policy is also clear that officers have a “duty to intervene to prevent or stop a perceived use of excessive force” so long as it is safe to do so.  It further states that a failure to intervene and/or report such incidents is itself misconduct — and potential grounds for discipline.

What’s the guidance if U.S. citizens are given orders by ICE?

Short of using force or deadly force, however, can ICE give orders to U.S. citizens? For example, it appears that ICE agents directed Renee Nicole Good to get out of her car shortly before she was killed.

ICE can give orders to U.S. citizens, but again, only in limited circumstances that are directly tied to the ICE agent’s immigration-related authority.  For example, ICE can give orders to U.S. citizens — or even detain them temporarily — if they are obstructing or interfering with immigration enforcement activity.

These situations are often very subjective. U.S. citizens do have significantly more freedom in their interactions with ICE than non-citizens. For example, according to guidance issued by the ACLU and the City of New Yorkamong others, if ordered or detained by ICE, a U.S. citizen can ask, “Am I free to leave?” and they should then be allowed to leave on their own free will.

Can ICE agents search a car without a warrant?

ICE agents also have the authority to search a car without a warrant in limited scenarios. The Fourth Amendment includes the automobile exceptionwhich allows federal agents to search a vehicle without a warrant if there’s probable cause to believe there’s evidence to a crime or contraband. Because a car can be driven away quickly, it may not be practical to secure a warrant beforehand without jeopardizing the investigation.

But federal agents must have specific probable cause to search a car without a warrant. A hunch or a feeling that the car conceals evidence of illegal activity is not enough for a federal agent to search a car without a warrant. ICE does have broader authority to search vehicles within 100 miles of the U.S. border, but even so, these searches typically require probable cause. Notably, ICE cannot search a car without a warrant simply because they suspect someone may be an undocumented immigrant.

However, car searches are the only major exception. ICE officers require search warrants for all other searches. Without a warrant, both U.S. citizens and non-citizens can say, “I do not consent to a search,” according to guidance issued by immigration rights organizations.

What’s the guidance on U.S. citizens recording or taking photos of ICE during enforcement activities?

Civil liberties groups generally advise that under the First Amendment, U.S. citizens can record or take photos of ICE performing law enforcement activities in public places so long as the recording does not interfere with ICE activity, like an arrest. Bystanders are allowed by law to collect important information, including names and badge numbers of the ICE agent executing the immigration activity.

Some states, including Florida, Tennessee, and Louisiana, have enacted their own laws requiring observers — or anyone else — to move back 25 feet or more from law enforcement or other first responders upon their request. While other, similar laws passed by Arizona and Indiana have been struck down, the constitutionality of these states’ laws has not been determined.

Finally, citizens and non-citizens alike share one fundamental right when it comes to encounters with ICE, or any other law enforcement agency, for that matter: the right to remain silent.

Lisa Rubin is MS NOW’s senior legal reporter and a former litigator.

Fallon Gallagher is a legal affairs reporter for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The country I love doesn’t look like Trump’s America

Published

on

We Love America” is one of CBS News’ “five simple principles” under new editor-in-chief Bari Weiss. In apparent defiance of a powerful, unseen enemy that demands they not love this country, the network added on social media, “And we make no apologies for saying so. Our foundational values of liberty, equality and the rule of law make us the last best hope on Earth.”

The strangeness of a straight news outlet — whose job ostensibly is to be skeptical of the powerful, especially the government — feeling the need to distinguish itself by proclaiming “love” for America aside, it’s a reductive, Manichean sentiment. Its opponent is a strawman, and it carries the implication that there’s only one way to love America: their way.

America showed its distaste for the Blame America First crowd and voted for Donald Trump even after he attempted a self-coup, among other national disgraces.

Now, I’m not oblivious to the point CBS News is trying to make. There’s a subset of far-left Americans, particularly in academia and activism, that considers the United States to be inherently illegitimate because of its history of slavery and ethnic cleansing. Some others in left-wing spaces believe capitalism is the root of all evil, that people should be judged by their immutable characteristics in the name of “anti-racism,” that political violence is justifiable (as long as it’s from the left) and that any deviation from their radical values is problematic. I’ve been critical of some of the more prominent figures in this area, whose work I’ve found ranged from the vacuous to the merely unhelpful if justice and equality are the goals.

In 2024, America showed its distaste for the Blame America First crowd and voted for Donald Trump even after he attempted a self-coup, among other national disgraces.

But America’s backlash against far-left activists far exceeds their actual influence in government, business and culture. They did, however, make for great bogeymen in GOP campaign ads — and were often their own worst enemies. As the progressive comedian Marc Maron asked his audience in a recent special, “You do realize we annoyed the average American into fascism, right?”

Still, there are plenty of people, myself includedwho “love America” and don’t subscribe to a childish — and frankly, dangerous — “my country, right or wrong” binary.

The America I love is a representative democracy where the ruling party doesn’t try to stay in power after losing an election or permanently brain-poison its followers with lies about voter fraud. The America I love respects civil liberties and due process under the law and doesn’t make exceptions in the name of meeting mass deportation quotas.

The America I love stubbornly defends freedom of speech. Its government doesn’t try to forbid the use of certain words to describe political opponents or harass news outlets with bogus litigation or ideologically-motivated regulatory threats. The America I love doesn’t deport people for their legitimate political activism.

The America I love is strong and reflective enough to grapple with even the worst of its own history. It doesn’t ban the teaching of slavery in public schools as a “divisive concept” on the grounds that it will make the children of right-wingers feel bad about their country. That’s what has happened in many Republican-led states and localities in recent years, but, if anything, the decades we’ve spent confronting America’s racist sins — and expanding the scope of civil rights — demonstrate that the country we love so dearly has the capacity to evolve for the better.

But, as the second Trump administration keeps reminding us, America also has the ability to devolve for the worse.

I don’t love that Trump’s America has renormalized gutter racismhelped in large part by the president, the vice president and many of their most influential supportersincluding the richest man in the world (who was also the biggest donor to their campaign).

As the second Trump administration keeps reminding us, America also has the ability to devolve for the worse.

Just this week, Elon Musk posted a “100” emoji to promote an X post that declared, “If White men become a minority, we will be slaughtered. … White solidarity is the only way to survive.” As of Friday, it had been viewed over 42 million times. Also this week, Vice President JD Vance, who last month touted that in America you no longer have to apologize for being white, said America has a “Somali problem,” a kind of phrasing that wouldn’t have sounded out of place in early 1930s Germany.

I don’t love that Trump’s America allowed Musk’s ludicrously destructive Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to destroy America’s moral and strategic advantage in “soft power,” killing USAID, which cost a pittance of our annual GDP to save millions of lives in poor countries from preventable diseases, and keep warlords and despots from filling the power vacuums.

I don’t love that in Trump’s America the executive branch ignores the Constitution, invades a sovereign country without congressional consultation and deposes its tyrannical leader with no apparent legal justificationwhile deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller touts the virtues of neo-colonialism. And I don’t love that Trump is threatening to seize Greenland from Denmark, our NATO ally, an ambition that seems hellbent on pointlessly destroying the rules-based international order that has made the United States a superpower since the end of World War II.

And I don’t love the fact that Musk and Vance have been enthusiastic boosters of Germany’s ascendant Nazi-sympathizing partythe Alternative for Deutschland (AfD). Nor am I proud of the fact that on Friday a DHS post on Instagram featured a recording of, “By God We’ll Have Our Home Again,” a chilling marching song known to be popular among the Proud Boys and white ethno-nationalist separatists. (I asked DHS for comment on the use of the song, but have not received a response.)

I don’t love that during Trump’s second term, it has become completely normal for masked, secret law enforcement agents to violently accost and arrest people without due process, including American citizens. As I warned in September when Trump’s campaign of extralegal killings of alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean kicked into high gear: “President Donald Trump — whether intentionally or not — is laying the groundwork to normalize the concept of the U.S. military’s killing Americans without due process.”

ICE agent Jonathan Ross killing Renee Good in Minneapolis this week shows my fears were not unfounded. The celebratory bloodlust on the right that followed Good’s death tells me the worst is yet to come.

“We Love America” isn’t a journalistic principle, it’s barely a bumper sticker. True patriotism does not mean ignoring your country’s faults or dismissing its critics as haters or disloyal. Loving your country means taking the good with the bad. It means being proud and being embarrassed — or even appalled — when necessary.

You can love America, and also apologize for it. But if loving America means caping for the powerful, whitewashing the racists and believing that military might-makes-right, you don’t love America.

You just love saying you do.

Anthony L. Fisher is a senior editor and opinion columnist for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending