The post Senate Advances Iran Conflict Limits Bill After Cassidy Reverses Position appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The expansion is part of a multibillion-dollar effort by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which operates under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Agency documents released in recent weeks show plans to significantly increase detention space nationwide, including through the conversion of large industrial buildings into processing or holding facilities.

Local leaders in several states say the speed and secrecy of the acquisitions have eroded trust, even in communities that broadly supported tougher immigration enforcement.

Surprise Purchases in Border and Heartland Communities

In Socorro, a city of about 40,000 residents near El Paso and the Rio Grande, officials learned through a filed deed that DHS had finalized a $122.8 million purchase of three warehouses totaling more than 826,000 square feet. The facilities could become one of the largest immigration detention sites in the region.

Mayor Rudy Cruz Jr. said the city received no prior notification from federal authorities. Residents packed City Council chambers in recent meetings, raising concerns about water supply, sewer capacity and the broader social impact of a large-scale detention center.

DHS has rejected the characterization of the sites as simple warehouses, saying they will be structured detention facilities meeting federal standards. Still, for Socorro — a predominantly Hispanic community with deep cross-border ties — the lack of early communication has fueled unease.

Similar situations have unfolded elsewhere. In Upper Bern Township, county officials said they first heard about ICE’s interest through informal channels before confirming that the agency had purchased a logistics center for $87.4 million. In Social Circle, a town of roughly 5,000 residents, officials were informed only after the $128.6 million sale of a 1 million-square-foot warehouse was completed. Plans there suggest the facility could hold up to 10,000 detainees — potentially double the town’s population.

A $38 Billion Expansion Plan

The scope of ICE’s expansion became clearer after documents were released by the governor’s office in New Hampshire in mid-February. According to the material, ICE intends to spend approximately $38.3 billion to expand detention capacity to as many as 92,000 beds nationwide.

Since President Donald Trump returned to office, the number of people held in ICE custody has increased to about 75,000, up from roughly 40,000 previously. Detainees are currently spread across more than 225 facilities.

The expansion blueprint describes eight large-scale detention centers capable of housing between 7,000 and 10,000 people each, alongside 16 regional processing centers and the acquisition of 10 existing “turnkey” facilities. Funding stems from a sweeping tax and spending package passed by Congress last year that nearly doubled DHS’s budget.

Legal experts say the administration is using military contracting mechanisms to expedite construction and conversion of facilities. Charles Tiefer, a professor emeritus at the University of Baltimore School of Law, noted that such contracts can allow federal agencies to bypass some standard procurement processes, limiting transparency while accelerating timelines.

Infrastructure and Tax Concerns

Beyond questions of transparency, many local officials are focused on practical implications.

Federal facilities are exempt from local property taxes. In Berks County, Pennsylvania, officials estimate a potential annual loss of more than $800,000 in local tax revenue if the warehouse conversion proceeds as planned. ICE has emphasized that employees at the facilities would contribute income taxes and local economic activity, but that has not eased concerns in some jurisdictions.

In Social Circle, city leaders said DHS assured them that due diligence had been conducted to ensure the detention center would not overwhelm water and sewage systems. However, the city contends that federal projections rely in part on a sewer treatment plant that has yet to be built. In a formal statement, officials said they do not currently have the capacity or resources to accommodate such demand.

In the Phoenix suburb of Surprise, local officials sent a sharply worded letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem after ICE purchased a warehouse in a residential area near a high school. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has raised the possibility of seeking legal remedies to challenge the project.

Political and Historical Context

The detention expansion comes amid a renewed federal push to tighten immigration enforcement. While border communities have long grappled with immigration policy shifts, the scale of the proposed warehouse conversions represents a marked escalation in infrastructure investment.

In Socorro, public comments have reflected both contemporary concerns and historical memory. Murals in the city commemorate the World War II-era Braceros Program, which brought Mexican agricultural workers to the United States under temporary labor agreements. That period, followed by mass deportation campaigns in the 1950s, remains part of the region’s collective history.

Speakers at recent council meetings questioned whether expanded detention capacity would lead to broader enforcement sweeps affecting families and long-established residents. Several also referenced recent deaths at an ICE detention facility at Fort Bliss, underscoring worries about detainee welfare.

Former Justice Department attorney Eduardo Castillo told city officials that challenging federal action can be daunting but not impossible. His remarks reflected a broader debate playing out nationally: how much influence local governments can exert when federal authorities pursue immigration enforcement initiatives within their jurisdictions.

A Pattern of Limited Advance Notice

According to property records and public statements, ICE has purchased at least seven warehouses in Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Texas. Other announced deals have not yet been finalized, and some potential sales in additional locations were abandoned.

DHS has confirmed that it is seeking expanded detention space but has not publicly disclosed specific sites before acquisitions are completed. In several cases, local officials said they learned about potential purchases through reporters or documents circulating online.

The pattern has created a recurring cycle: property filings surface, community meetings fill with residents demanding clarity, and local leaders seek information after federal decisions have effectively been made.

For now, the warehouse conversions remain in various stages of planning and development. As ICE moves forward with its expansion strategy, the friction between federal authority and local governance is likely to continue — particularly in towns where the physical and symbolic presence of large detention centers would reshape both landscape and identity.

Source: AP News – ICE’s purchases for big detention centers are marked by secrecy, frustrating towns

The post ICE Warehouse Purchases Stir Backlash in U.S. Communities appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Bruna Ferreira, 33, was detained on Nov. 12 during a traffic stop in Revere, Massachusetts, before being transferred through several states and ultimately held at a detention facility in Louisiana, according to her attorney, Todd Pomerleau. He says his client was not informed of the reason for her arrest at the time and maintains she poses no risk to the public.

Pomerleau said Ferreira and her former fiancé, Michael Leavitt, share custody of their son, who lives in New Hampshire. The pair ended their engagement years ago but maintained a co-parenting arrangement that included the child spending frequent nights and weekends with his mother.

“She disappeared from his daily life without warning,” Pomerleau said, describing the incident as a distressing situation for the family. He argued that Ferreira has complied with previous legal requirements and should have been allowed to remain in the community while her immigration status was addressed.

Michael Leavitt did not respond to a request for comment. The White House press secretary also declined comment. Karoline Leavitt, who grew up in New Hampshire and previously ran for Congress in 2022, served as a spokesperson during Donald Trump’s presidential campaign before joining the administration.

Background on Immigration Status and DACA Process

Ferreira was brought to the United States from Brazil at the age of 2 or 3, her attorney said, and later enrolled in the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative, which offers temporary protection from deportation for certain immigrants brought to the country as children. Pomerleau said she was in the process of applying for permanent residency.

The Department of Homeland Security said Ferreira originally entered the country on a tourist visa requiring her departure in 1999. A spokesperson also stated she had a prior arrest for battery, though Pomerleau disputes the claim and said no documentation supports it.

An online search of court records in Massachusetts for locations where Ferreira has previously lived did not show any such charge. Records in New Hampshire indicate two motor vehicle violations from 2020 — speeding and operating an unregistered vehicle — which were conditionally filed without a conviction, contingent on completing a driver safety program and maintaining good behavior. Both matters were cleared after one year.

“They’re citing something we’ve never seen,” Pomerleau said. “If there were a criminal case, she wouldn’t have remained in the country all these years. Yet she’s been transferred across multiple states without explanation.”

A DHS spokesperson confirmed Ferreira is currently being held in Louisiana.

Karoline Leavitt Family ICE Case Highlights Shifting Policy

The Biden administration has continued to face legal and political pressure over the future of DACA, which does not provide legal immigration status but offers renewable protection from deportation and work authorization. While the policy shielded approximately 580,000 people as of 2023, court challenges have left its long-term viability uncertain.

Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin recently reiterated that DACA recipients are not automatically exempt from enforcement actions, stating that the program “does not confer legal status in this country.” The message reflects a broader shift from earlier interpretations of prosecutorial discretion and comes as U.S. immigration authorities have increased detentions nationwide.

Advocacy organizations say the case underscores ongoing uncertainty for people who have lived most of their lives in the United States but lack a permanent pathway to residency. Reuters and other international outlets have reported that immigration detention levels have fluctuated over the past decade, affected by changing policy priorities and court rulings. Rights groups have also criticized long-distance transfers between facilities, saying they disrupt access to legal counsel and family contact.

Federal officials have not publicly detailed the specific reason for Ferreira’s arrest or why she was transferred among several states before being held in Louisiana. ICE did not respond to questions about her case, including whether she faces removal proceedings or has a scheduled hearing.

Pomerleau described the transfers as an unnecessary burden on a parent who has lived in the United States for three decades. “She has a business, pays taxes, and has shared custody of her son,” he said. “There was no reason for this level of detention.”

Family and Legal Proceedings Continue

Ferreira remains separated from her son in New Hampshire while her legal team seeks her release. Pomerleau said they are working to challenge her detention and obtain access to case documentation. No court date has been publicly confirmed.

Her family has not spoken publicly, and officials associated with the White House press secretary have distanced the administration from the matter. Karoline Leavitt has not commented on her former family connection and is not involved in the legal proceedings.

Immigration attorneys say similar cases often hinge on technical factors, including lapsed paperwork, prior visa terms, or unresolved administrative filings. Without permanent status, DACA recipients remain vulnerable to enforcement actions even if they have lived in the United States for decades, legal analysts note.

For now, Ferreira’s future remains unclear, as her case unfolds amid ongoing national debate over immigration enforcement and the long-term status of childhood arrivals.

Source: AP News – Immigrant with family ties to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt is detained by ICE

The post Immigrant Linked to White House Press Secretary’s Family Remains Detained in ICE Custody appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The legacy of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes is expanding once again as newly released U.S. Justice Department files shed light on his connections to academics, politicians, global institutions, and members of royalty. The disclosures, mandated by new legislation signed by President Donald Trump, have renewed scrutiny of powerful individuals who interacted with Epstein before and after his 2008 conviction. The revelations are prompting resignations, internal inquiries, and questions about how institutions overlooked his conduct for so long.

The Expanding Human and Political Cost of the Epstein Scandal

Epstein’s crimes left a trail of harm spanning continents. According to the U.S. Justice Department, more than 1,000 victims have been identified, a figure illustrating the scale of exploitation that persisted for years. While Epstein died in jail in 2019, the consequences of his actions continue to reach academics, global politicians, financiers, and members of the British royal family.

Public interest intensified this week after President Trump—who was once friendly with Epstein before a reported falling out in the early to mid-2000s—signed a bill compelling the Justice Department to release large portions of its files. The decision followed political pressure in Congress, including from members of the president’s own party. International media framed the move as a rare public rebuke of Trump within a political landscape marked by polarization.

Although the legislation mandates broad disclosure, some files remain shielded to protect victims and ongoing investigations. Trump has repeatedly stated he had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and committed no wrongdoing.

Harvard Confronts Fallout as Summers Faces Career Collapse

Epstein’s Academic Connections Trigger Institutional Accountability

Economist Lawrence Summers—former U.S. treasury secretary, ex-Harvard president, and a prominent public figure—was among the highest-profile names linked to the new disclosures. Emails released this week show that Summers maintained contact with Epstein years after the financier pled guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor. The exchanges included personal discussions in which Epstein referred to himself as Summers’ “wing man.”

The revelations led to immediate consequences. Summers stepped down from advisory and leadership roles at OpenAI, the Center for American Progress, and Yale University’s Budget Lab. Although he initially intended to continue teaching at Harvard, he later withdrew from those duties as well.

Harvard announced its own renewed review, citing previous findings from 2020 that Epstein visited the university’s campus more than 40 times after his plea deal. The institution confirmed he had access to an office and a research center he helped fund. Harvard accepted more than $9 million from him before his conviction and banned donations only afterward.

Summers, 70, previously left his role as Harvard president in 2006 following controversial comments about gender representation in science and math. His current situation, analysts note, may be the most damaging setback of his career.

British Royalty Faces Renewed Pressure Over Andrew’s Connection to Epstein

Mountbatten-Windsor Loses Title, Residence, and Public Standing

The scandal has long shadowed Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew. New disclosures reinforce the timeline of his association with Epstein, including interactions after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. The fallout has now cost Andrew his royal title, his home on castle grounds, and his remaining public duties.

Queen Elizabeth II was once viewed as protective of Andrew, long rumored to be her favorite child. However, public pressure mounted after his 2019 BBC interview, widely criticized for its lack of empathy toward victims and implausible explanations regarding his relationship with Epstein.

Central to the controversy is Virginia Giuffre, who said Epstein trafficked her to Andrew when she was 17. A widely circulated photograph showed Andrew with his hand around her waist. Andrew denied wrongdoing and denied recalling the photograph, though he ultimately reached a settlement with Giuffre. She died by suicide earlier this year.

The ongoing scandal has created political and public-relations challenges for King Charles III, who is undergoing cancer treatment and is focused on stabilizing the monarchy for the next generation. He removed Andrew’s title and required him to vacate Royal Lodge, his longtime 30-room residence near Windsor Castle. Andrew has since moved to Sandringham, a more isolated estate.

Political Turmoil in Washington as Trump Battles Questions Over Epstein Files

The President’s Efforts to Contain the Issue Prove Unsuccessful

President Trump’s longstanding attempts to distance himself from Epstein resurfaced sharply when the Justice Department initially announced earlier this year—without warning—that it would halt further releases of Epstein-related files. The decision angered some Trump supporters who viewed disclosure as a campaign promise.

The backlash was swift. MAGA-aligned commentators accused Trump of shielding information, prompting the president to publicly criticize his own base, calling dissenters “stupid people” and “weaklings.” The controversy continued through July, with reporters repeatedly pressing him on his past association with Epstein.

Key political developments—including the end of a record 43-day government shutdown—did not quiet the debate. The issue escalated when congressional Democrats released their own selection of Epstein-related emails, including a claim that Trump “knew about the girls,” which he called a hoax.

Trump denied writing a reported birthday note to Epstein referenced by The Wall Street Journal and responded by filing a $10 billion defamation suit against the publication. He later directed the Justice Department to investigate Democrats tied to Epstein.

The president ultimately reversed course on the files when it became clear that only one Republican was willing to vote against their release. After signing the bill, he insisted the decision was his alone, though the political pressure was evident.

A Growing Crisis of Trust Across Borders and Institutions

Global Entities Continue to Wrestle With Questions of Accountability

The Epstein scandal continues to erode public trust in institutions—universities, governments, financial entities, and media organizations—that had relationships with the disgraced financier. Analysts say the newly released documents mark only the beginning of a new phase of scrutiny.

As additional files surface over the coming weeks, more disclosures are expected to put pressure on leaders and organizations around the world. While Epstein is no longer alive, the consequences of his actions—and the decisions of those who associated with him—are still unfolding.

Source: AP News – The fallout of Epstein’s crimes spans the globe. Here’s a look at some of those paying the cost

The post Global Fallout Deepens as New Epstein Files Expose High-Level Ties and Institutional Failures appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

A draft executive order obtained by The Associated Press shows President Donald Trump may push to prevent states from enacting artificial intelligence (AI) regulations. The proposal, supported by some Republicans, aims to unify oversight at the federal level but faces criticism from both parties and civil liberties groups concerned about corporate accountability and consumer protections.

Current State-Level AI Regulations

Four states—Colorado, California, Utah, and Texas—have passed laws addressing aspects of AI in the private sector, according to the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

These measures focus on limiting the collection of personal data and increasing transparency for AI systems used in hiring, lending, housing, and healthcare. Research indicates AI can make biased decisions, sometimes favoring certain genders or races.

Calli Schroeder, director of the AI & Human Rights Program at public interest group EPIC, explained, “With a human, I can ask, ‘How did you reach that conclusion?’ With AI, that transparency is often unavailable, even to its programmers.”

Beyond general rules, states have regulated AI applications in elections, nonconsensual content creation, and government operations. Some proposals also require private companies to assess and mitigate potential discriminatory impacts of AI.

Trump and Republican Objectives

The draft executive order reportedly directs federal agencies to identify state AI regulations deemed burdensome and encourages states to halt them. Methods could include withholding federal funding or legally challenging state laws.

The order also aims to develop a lighter, nationwide regulatory framework that would supersede state-level rules. Trump and supporters argue that inconsistent state regulations create barriers for AI companies and risk allowing China to gain an edge in AI development. The president has also criticized state rules as producing what he terms “Woke AI.”

A senior Trump administration official noted that the draft order is not final and could change before signing, with reports suggesting a possible announcement as early as Friday.

Separately, House Republican leadership is exploring legislation to temporarily block states from regulating AI. Details remain unclear, including which state laws such a proposal would override.

TechNet, a tech industry advocacy group representing companies like Google and Amazon, has argued that pausing state regulations could benefit smaller AI firms and provide time for federal lawmakers to craft a framework balancing innovation and accountability.

Challenges to Federal Preemption of State Laws

Attempts to prevent states from regulating AI at the federal level have faced internal Republican opposition. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis stated a federal ban would be “Not acceptable,” warning it would favor Big Tech and reduce state authority to protect against harmful applications targeting children or censor political speech online.

Cody Venzke, senior policy council at the ACLU, emphasized public concern over unsafe AI. “The American people do not want AI to be discriminatory, unsafe, or hallucinatory,” he said. “Winning the AI race cannot come at the cost of trustworthy systems.”

Federal preemption proposals have historically struggled because they clash with states’ rights to protect residents and maintain consumer safeguards, a tension central to ongoing debates over technology regulation in the U.S.

The Broader Context of AI Regulation

State regulations represent a patchwork approach, reflecting local priorities and concerns over privacy, safety, and fairness. AI increasingly influences daily life, from employment decisions to healthcare recommendations, raising questions about transparency and accountability.

The federal government has yet to establish a comprehensive AI framework, leaving states to act independently. Advocates for a unified approach argue that consistent rules could spur innovation while providing oversight, but opponents caution that overly permissive federal policies may weaken protections for citizens.

Congressional debates and executive actions highlight the complexity of balancing technological progress, national competitiveness, and individual rights. The discussion over AI governance is likely to continue as the technology evolves and its societal impacts become more pronounced.

What Comes Next

The draft executive order and possible congressional measures signal heightened attention to AI governance in the U.S. While proponents frame these actions as necessary to maintain global competitiveness, critics argue that limiting state-level oversight could favor large tech corporations and reduce transparency.

As policymakers, civil rights organizations, and tech industry representatives weigh in, the outcome could set a precedent for how AI is regulated nationwide. The ongoing debate underscores the challenge of creating policies that protect users without stifling innovation.

Source: AP News – What to know about Trump’s draft proposal to curtail state AI regulations

The post Trump’s Draft Proposal Seeks to Limit State AI Regulations appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The Trump administration is confronting a widening set of political and economic pressures as concerns over living costs grow and congressional Republicans escalate efforts to release more documents from the Jeffrey Epstein case. The combination of voter anxiety, internal party divisions, and recent Democratic gains has created a challenging landscape for a president seeking to maintain control ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The developments indicate a shift in Washington’s political climate, where Trump’s once solid influence is beginning to encounter new limits.

The President’s Political Standing Shows Signs of Strain

President Donald Trump returns to Washington facing a political environment that has shifted noticeably in recent weeks. According to reporting from the Associated Press, the administration is contending with rising pressure from both voters and members of the president’s own party as cost-of-living concerns draw renewed national attention.

These challenges have emerged shortly after Democrats secured significant victories in statewide elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and other regions. Analysts say the results reflect public unease with the administration’s handling of economic issues, especially as households across the United States report difficulty managing everyday expenses.

The situation presents a stark contrast to Trump’s early months in office, when Republican control of Congress and broad party alignment gave him considerable freedom to reshape federal agencies, pursue large-scale security deployments, and undertake high-profile renovations at the White House. However, political dominance has not erased the lingering effects of inflation and public frustration over affordability, even as federal figures show inflation running lower than during President Joe Biden’s term.

Trump is expected to address these issues at an economic conference on Monday night, where advisers say he will emphasize cost-of-living relief and legislative priorities for the coming year.

A Lame-Duck Presidency Adds Complexity to Republican Calculus

Another factor complicating Trump’s political position is the constitutional limitation preventing him from seeking a third term. While routine for second-term presidents, the reality of Trump’s lame-duck status is increasingly shaping congressional strategy, particularly among Republican lawmakers weighing how closely to align with the administration.

Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky underscored this dynamic during an interview with ABC News. Massie, who has periodically clashed with Trump, urged his colleagues to support legislation compelling the Justice Department to release additional information from the Jeffrey Epstein case.

Massie argued that lawmakers should consider the long-term political implications of their votes, noting that Trump will no longer be able to protect them politically once his term concludes.

Epstein Files Reignite Divisions Within the Republican Party

The push to release more Epstein-related documents has become a focal point of tension between the White House and certain Republican lawmakers. Epstein, who died by suicide in federal custody several years ago, was a convicted sex offender with well-documented ties to influential business and political figures. His case has drawn widespread public scrutiny and fueled speculation about broader misconduct among American elites.

The White House initially opposed the legislation that would mandate the publication of additional Epstein files. Trump described the measure as an unnecessary continuation of inquiries he considers politically motivated. Yet, in an unexpected reversal, the president announced support for the vote on Sunday, saying “it’s time to move on” from the issue.

Political analysts view the shift as a rare acknowledgment of legislative defeat for the administration, particularly within a Congress where Republicans hold the majority and have often aligned themselves with the president’s priorities.

The episode also highlights broader tensions within the party, including Trump’s recent disagreement with Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, another prominent ally who has occasionally diverged from White House strategies.

Redistricting Battles Add Another Layer Ahead of Midterms

Beyond the dispute over Epstein files, the administration is working to secure Republican majorities in Congress during the upcoming midterm elections. A Democratic takeover would give the opposing party control over committee investigations and the ability to block much of the president’s legislative agenda.

Central to Trump’s strategy is pressuring state officials to redraw congressional districts in ways that could improve Republican prospects. This week, he criticized state leaders in Indiana for resisting efforts to alter district boundaries and threatened to endorse primary challengers against lawmakers who do not support redistricting proposals.

“We must keep the Majority at all costs,” the president wrote in a social media post, urging Republicans to “fight back.”

Cost-of-Living Concerns Remain a Vulnerable Point for the Administration

While internal party fractures draw significant media attention, voter frustration over affordability remains the most persistent challenge for the administration. Public polling conducted by several national research organizations indicates that many Americans feel their budgets are under strain, even as national inflation rates have gradually fallen.

During remarks on Sunday, Trump acknowledged that consumer prices remain “a little bit higher,” though he defended the administration’s broader economic strategy. In recent weeks, the White House has reduced tariffs on imported goods including beef, coffee, and tropical fruit. The adjustments represent a partial retreat from the tariff-centric trade policy that defined much of Trump’s first term.

Economists say the tariff cuts could help ease specific cost pressures, though they caution that the impact may vary across different sectors. Tariffs historically raise import costs, which can contribute to higher retail prices for consumers.

In addition to the tariff changes, Trump has proposed a $2,000 dividend for most Americans, funded through tariff revenue. However, the plan faces uncertainty in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern about the federal deficit and the potential inflationary effects of large-scale cash distributions.

Recent Elections Highlight Voter Dissatisfaction

The Democratic victories earlier this month have intensified concerns among Republican strategists about the political climate heading into the midterms. Neil Newhouse, a veteran Republican pollster, said the scale of Democratic wins was “not surprising” but highlighted the breadth of support for candidates who campaigned heavily on economic concerns.

Newhouse cautioned that Republicans risk repeating what he described as mistakes made by President Biden’s administration, including underestimating voter frustration with inflation. He noted that political messaging alone cannot overcome the day-to-day impact of higher grocery, fuel, and utility prices.

“Unless people are seeing changes in their own bills, it doesn’t make a difference,” Newhouse said.

Source: AP News – Epstein files and affordability concerns threaten to knock Trump’s 2nd presidency off course

The post Epstein Files and Economic Concerns Place Growing Pressure on Trump’s Second Term appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Court disputes linked to the federal government shutdown have left millions of Americans uncertain about accessing November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program payments.

Millions of Americans rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to purchase groceries. This weekend, some states have begun distributing November benefits, while others remain on hold amid ongoing legal challenges stemming from the federal government shutdown.

Legal Challenges Delay Payments

The Trump administration initially announced last month that it would not fund SNAP benefits for November due to the shutdown. This decision left nearly one in eight Americans uncertain about access to vital food aid.

On Friday, several states moved to issue full monthly SNAP payments after a federal judge ordered the administration to distribute the funds. However, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused the order late Friday to allow a Boston appeals court to review a potential longer-term halt. Jackson oversees emergency cases from Massachusetts, where the pause has affected some residents.

While some states continued issuing benefits, millions of SNAP recipients across the country remain in limbo.

Impact on SNAP Recipients

Nearly 42 million Americans rely on SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, to cover groceries. Most recipients earn below the poverty line, which is approximately $32,000 annually for a family of four. Individuals may receive up to $300 monthly, while families of four can receive nearly $1,000, though many households receive less based on income calculations.

The delay has increased demand at food banks, pantries, and free meal programs. Some states provided emergency funding to local organizations, while others distributed direct cash assistance from state budgets.

In North Carolina, Health and Human Services Secretary Dev Sangvai reported that over 190,000 households received just $16 or less after the state paused full payments following the Supreme Court’s temporary order.

States That Have Issued Benefits

Distribution of SNAP funds depends heavily on state-level action. Hawaii, Oregon, and Wisconsin quickly processed full benefits after the federal judge’s order.

“We moved with haste once we verified everything,” said Joseph Campos II, deputy director of Hawaii’s Department of Human Services. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek added that state employees “worked through the night” to issue November benefits.

Other states, including California, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington, also confirmed that some residents received their full payments. Washington Governor Bob Ferguson said more than 250,000 households that missed early-November payments received their full benefit on Friday, with remaining recipients scheduled for later if legal barriers do not persist.

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont reported that full benefits reached SNAP recipients by Saturday afternoon. Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey said half a million residents received payments on Saturday, with another half million scheduled for next week. Colorado distributed full benefits to about 32,000 recipients before the Supreme Court’s pause, while more than 560,000 were still awaiting funds. Rhode Island provided full benefits to roughly 79,000 households, according to Governor Dan McKee.

The Trump administration noted in a Supreme Court filing that funds already distributed cannot be recovered.

States Still Waiting for SNAP Payments

Before the Supreme Court pause, New York had planned to make full SNAP benefits available by Sunday. New Hampshire, Arizona, and Minnesota also announced upcoming distributions.

In several other states, residents may wait until next week. State officials said they are awaiting guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP at the federal level.

Why November Benefits Were Delayed

The initial hold on SNAP benefits was a direct result of the federal government shutdown. After two judges ruled that the administration could not skip November payments entirely, the government released partial benefits using a $4.6 billion emergency reserve.

A judge later ruled that partial payments were insufficient, ordering additional funds to provide full monthly benefits. The Trump administration appealed, seeking to suspend any order requiring expenditure beyond the contingency fund. Justice Jackson’s temporary hold reflects that ongoing legal dispute, leaving millions of SNAP recipients awaiting clarity.

Source: AP News – SNAP food aid gets to people in some states while others remain in limbo amid court battles

The post SNAP Benefits Reach Some States While Others Await Federal Guidance appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Trump Asserts Authority Over Potential Payouts

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Trump said he would have “the final say” on any decision related to compensation, suggesting the matter would ultimately “go across my desk.” He did not confirm specific figures, though The New York Times reported that two administrative claims were filed before his reelection bid seeking financial damages over prior federal inquiries.

Trump claimed he had not discussed the details with officials but reiterated his belief that “they would owe me a lot of money.” He also joked that if any taxpayer money were awarded, he could donate it or use it toward a new ballroom being built at the White House.

Claims Linked to Mar-a-Lago and Russia Investigations

The New York Times reported that Trump’s filings include two separate claims. One, submitted in August 2024, requests compensatory and punitive damages for what his lawyers described as a “malicious prosecution” tied to the 2022 FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago estate. That investigation led to criminal charges alleging he mishandled classified documents and obstructed government recovery efforts.

The second claim reportedly seeks damages related to the now-closed investigation into possible links between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. The long-running inquiry concluded without charges against Trump but remains a political flashpoint that he has repeatedly denounced as baseless.

Justice Department Protocols and Potential Conflicts

The Justice Department follows established procedures to evaluate such administrative claims, often aiming to resolve disputes before they reach the courts. However, Trump’s assertion that he could personally decide on any payout raises questions about executive oversight and ethical boundaries.

One of Trump’s former defense attorneys in the Mar-a-Lago case, Todd Blanche, now serves as deputy attorney general. Another lawyer, Stanley Woodward—who represented Trump’s co-defendant and former aide Walt Nauta—is currently the associate attorney general.

“In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement. The White House deferred all inquiries to the DOJ.

Trump’s Past Comments on Legal Claims

During a recent White House appearance alongside Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump revisited his ongoing disputes with the Justice Department. He described the situation humorously, saying, “I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said: ‘I’m suing myself.’”

He added, “I’ll say, ‘Give me X dollars,’ and I don’t know what to do with the lawsuit. It’s a great lawsuit and now I won—it looks bad. I’m suing myself, so I don’t know.”

The Times reported that the claims were filed through a formal DOJ process that enables settlements to avoid prolonged litigation.

Legal and Political Implications

The Justice Department’s review of Trump’s claims could take months, with any potential settlement requiring internal approval and ethical review. Legal experts note that a sitting president’s involvement in personal claims against federal agencies could present a complex conflict of interest, as it blurs lines between executive authority and personal financial interest.

Trump’s previous legal battles with the federal government, particularly over classified documents, were among the most high-profile investigations of his presidency. Special counsel Jack Smith, who led the Mar-a-Lago probe, dropped related criminal charges in November 2024, citing DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president.

While Trump has framed the cases as politically motivated attempts to derail his return to office, Justice Department officials maintain that their actions followed established legal standards and internal oversight.

Ongoing Review and Public Transparency

As of Wednesday, the status of Trump’s claims and any potential settlement discussions remain unclear. Neither the Justice Department nor the White House has provided a timeline for resolution. Analysts suggest the outcome could influence broader discussions on presidential accountability, executive privilege, and the handling of federal investigations involving elected officials.

Source: AP News – Trump says he’d have final say on money he seeks over past federal investigations into his conduct

The post US President insists any settlement decision must go through him, citing ongoing claims tied to Mar-a-Lago search and Russia inquiry. appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published: October 13, 2025, 22:10 EDT

AstraZeneca has reached an agreement with the Trump administration to lower prescription drug prices for Medicaid, marking a significant move in the administration’s ongoing effort to make medicines more affordable. The deal, announced Friday at the White House, also spares the British drugmaker from potential tariffs threatened by President Donald Trump.

White House Announces Agreement With AstraZeneca

President Trump, alongside AstraZeneca Chief Executive Pascal Soriot, unveiled the agreement in the Oval Office. The arrangement will allow Medicaid to receive “most-favored-nation” pricing—ensuring that the U.S. government pays no more than the lowest price offered in comparable developed nations.

“For many years, Americans have paid the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, by far,” Trump said during the announcement. “This deal will cut prices to the lowest level anywhere in the world—that’s what we get.”

Soriot described the negotiations as “tough but productive,” noting that the administration’s persistence pushed the company toward a comprehensive solution.

Part of Broader Push to Lower Prescription Costs

The AstraZeneca deal follows a similar agreement made by Pfizer last month, both stemming from a May executive order requiring drugmakers to reduce prices voluntarily or face federal payment restrictions. The policy has been described by the administration as an incentive-based approach to reforming pharmaceutical pricing.

Trump said tariffs played a key role in bringing companies to the table. “The tariffs were a big reason he came here,” he said, referring to Soriot.

Policy experts and consumer advocates have cautiously welcomed the development but warned that structural safeguards are needed to ensure long-term affordability rather than temporary reductions driven by executive action.

AstraZeneca’s Expanding U.S. Presence

Headquartered in Cambridge, United Kingdom, AstraZeneca is known for its portfolio of cancer treatments, including Tagrisso (lung cancer), Lynparza (ovarian cancer), and Calquence (chronic lymphocytic leukemia). Together, those drugs generated over $7.5 billion in U.S. sales last year, according to company data.

As part of its long-term U.S. investment strategy, AstraZeneca announced a $4.5 billion manufacturing facility near Charlottesville, Virginia. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin joined the Oval Office event to celebrate the project, which is expected to generate 3,600 new jobs in its initial phase.

The company said the Virginia plant is central to its $50 billion investment plan in the United States through 2030. AstraZeneca aims to reach $80 billion in annual revenue by that time, with roughly half coming from the U.S. market.

Political and Industry Reactions

President Trump credited his administration’s policies for encouraging major drugmakers to agree to voluntary cost reductions. He also criticized Democrats for attempting to claim political credit for similar pricing reforms initiated during the Biden administration.

One of AstraZeneca’s cancer drugs had already seen a price adjustment under Medicare negotiations launched during President Biden’s term. Despite that, Trump insisted the new agreement reflects his administration’s distinct approach to direct negotiation with pharmaceutical companies.

Economic analysts have noted that AstraZeneca’s decision to cancel an earlier vaccine facility expansion in the U.K. may have influenced its pivot toward deeper U.S. investments, citing favorable tax and regulatory conditions under the current administration.

Launch of TrumpRX.gov for Direct Drug Purchases

The White House also previewed a new online platform, TrumpRX.gov, designed to allow Americans to purchase medications directly from manufacturers. The website, set to launch in January 2026, will initially feature drugs from Pfizer and AstraZeneca.

According to officials, the portal aims to streamline pharmaceutical distribution by reducing intermediaries and ensuring lower retail prices for consumers.

The TrumpRX.gov landing page currently displays large photos of President Trump and a “Coming Soon” banner, along with a note stating it was “Designed in DC by The National Design Studio,” a government web design hub created in August and led by Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia.

Analysts Say Broader Implications Still Unclear

Economists and public health experts say the AstraZeneca deal represents progress toward lowering drug costs, but its long-term impact will depend on enforcement and continued cooperation between the federal government and pharmaceutical firms.

“If these price guarantees are maintained beyond the current administration, it could mark a turning point in U.S. healthcare affordability,” said Sarah Bloom, a senior analyst at the Brookings Institution. “But sustained oversight will be critical to prevent prices from rebounding once political pressure subsides.”

Source: AP News – AstraZeneca agrees to lower drug prices for Medicaid under Trump administration deal

The post AstraZeneca Reaches Deal With Trump Administration to Lower U.S. Drug Prices appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published: September-22-2025, 21:00 EDT

Former U.S. President Barack Obama has warned that the country faces a “political crisis” following the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Speaking at an event in Pennsylvania, Obama urged restraint and national unity, contrasting his message with recent comments from political leaders, while the case against the accused gunman moves forward in Utah.

Obama Addresses the Nation’s Political Climate

At a public event in Erie, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday, former President Barack Obama reflected on the killing of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, calling the incident both “horrific” and a sign of deeper political divisions.

Obama emphasized that he did not personally know Kirk and disagreed with many of his views, yet insisted that the killing represented a tragedy for the nation. He warned that the United States is now experiencing “a political crisis of the sort that we haven’t seen before,” urging Americans to respect the rights of others to voice opposing opinions.

Details of the Shooting and Charges Filed

Charlie Kirk, 31, was fatally shot on September 10 while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Authorities confirmed he died of a single gunshot wound.

On Tuesday, prosecutors formally charged Tyler Robinson, 22, with murder, weapons violations, and related offenses. According to Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray, investigators discovered text messages in which Robinson allegedly stated he attacked Kirk because he “had enough of his hatred.” Prosecutors have announced their intent to seek the death penalty in the case.

The tragedy has fueled widespread political debate, with responses divided sharply along party lines.

Partisan Responses and Political Fallout

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, several allies of former President Donald Trump accused left-wing activists and Democratic lawmakers of encouraging hostility toward Kirk.

Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that the administration would pursue stronger measures against what she described as “hate speech,” despite the absence of a formal federal hate speech law in the United States. Vice President JD Vance also called for individuals who celebrated or condoned the killing to be publicly identified. “Call them out, and hell, call their employer,” Vance said during an appearance as guest host on Kirk’s podcast.

These remarks, critics argue, have further inflamed an already polarized political environment.

Obama’s Call for Unity

Contrasting sharply with the rhetoric of Trump and his allies, Obama pointed to examples of leadership that, in his view, reinforced the importance of national cohesion during crises.

He praised Utah Governor Spencer Cox, a Republican, for demonstrating that disagreement can occur without abandoning standards of civility. Obama also commended Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, for his resilience after a firebomb attack on the governor’s residence earlier this year, which authorities described as targeted.

The former president cited historical precedents, noting that after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush deliberately avoided framing the conflict as a war against Islam. He also referenced his own response to the 2015 Charleston church shooting, in which he refrained from politicizing the tragedy.

Criticism of Trump’s Language

Obama argued that the language currently being used by Trump and senior members of his administration represents a departure from past presidential norms. He noted that Trump and his aides have described political opponents as “vermin” and as enemies who should be “targeted.”

According to Obama, such rhetoric reflects a deeper issue in American democracy that must be addressed collectively. “When tensions are high, part of the president’s job is to pull people together,” he said.

White House Pushback

The White House responded sharply to Obama’s remarks. In a statement to the BBC, a spokesperson accused the former president of hypocrisy and claimed he had “sowed division” during his own time in office.

“Obama used every opportunity to pit Americans against each other,” the spokesperson said. “His division has inspired generations of Democrats to slander their opponents as ‘deplorables,’ ‘fascists,’ or ‘Nazis.’”

This exchange illustrates how deeply entrenched partisan divisions have become, even as the country grapples with violence linked to political tensions.

Shifting Norms of Presidential Criticism

Traditionally, former U.S. presidents have been reluctant to openly criticize their successors. However, Obama has increasingly spoken out in recent months.

He has criticized Trump’s policies toward universities and judges, as well as what he described as Democratic leaders’ insufficient pushback against actions taken by the current administration. His latest comments highlight his concern that both political rhetoric and acts of violence risk undermining the nation’s democratic institutions.

Broader Implications

The killing of Charlie Kirk has intensified debates over political rhetoric, violence, and responsibility in American public life. While the legal case against Tyler Robinson proceeds in Utah, the broader conversation has become a test of how the country confronts division.

Obama’s remarks underscore the challenge of preserving democratic values amid sharp ideological polarization. The coming months are likely to bring continued debate over the role of political leaders in shaping the national discourse.

Source: BBC – Obama says US faces ‘political crisis’ after killing of Charlie Kirk

The post Obama Warns of U.S. ‘Political Crisis’ Following the Killing of Charlie Kirk appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.