Outside the Bronx mosque where a New York City police officer was eulogized last week, a group of officers in their formal navy blue uniforms solemnly hung a banner bearing the young officer’s photograph and the name of his fraternity, the Bangladeshi American Police Association.

Didarul Islam — one of four people killed in the July 28 shooting at the Manhattan office tower housing the NFL’s headquarters — was the NYPD’s first Bangladeshi American officer killed in the line of duty.

His funeral underscored the fertile recruiting ground the department has found in the city’s thriving Bangladeshi community. More than 1,000 of the NYPD’s roughly 33,000 uniformed members are Bangladeshi Americans, according to the association. Another 1,500 people of Bangladeshi heritage are among the department’s 19,000 civilian employees.

Those numbers are up from just a handful of officers a few decades ago, a phenomenon some Bangladeshi officers attribute partly to their own patriotic response to anti-Muslim sentiment after the 9/11 attacks, as well as active recruitment and word-of-mouth in the community.

Among the sea of NYPD officers who lined the street to honor Islam, 36, were some who opted for traditional South Asian attire, their police badges worn around their necks. Many joined the throngs of mourners who knelt in the street in prayer.

“He actually uplifted our community in a way that was not imaginable before,” said Shamsul Haque, one of the co-founders of the NYPD’s Bangladeshi officers’ group. “His legacy will endure not only as a hero who gave his life protecting others, but also as a symbol of hope, integrity and the American dream.”

When Haque joined the NYPD in 2004, he was one of just a few Bangladeshi immigrants. Many of those who joined around then wanted to dispel the notion that all Muslims were terrorist sympathizers, he said.

Haque, who immigrated to the U.S. in 1991, had recently graduated college with a business administration degree when the twin towers fell. But rather than follow his peers into a financial field, he enrolled in the police academy, a decision he acknowledged was initially met with skepticism from his parents.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the NYPD built up a domestic surveillance program that for years systematically spied on Muslim communities and monitored local businesses, mosques and student groups in a hunt for terror cells.

Haque, 52, who retired earlier this year after becoming the first South Asian and first Muslim to attain the rank of lieutenant commander in the NYPD, said the perception of Muslims among rank-and-file members has improved.

Early in his career, he recalled feeling singled out when a counterterrorism expert warned officers during a training session about the possibility of al-Qaida operatives infiltrating the force.

To grow their numbers, Haque and others went out into the community proselytizing a sensible path for recently arrived immigrants.

Aspiring Bangladeshi officers were encouraged to take civilian jobs in the department, such as traffic enforcement officers and school safety agents, that don’t require U.S. citizenship. After gaining citizenship, usually in about five years, they could then apply for the police academy to become a uniformed officer.

Some 60% of all officers of Bangladeshi heritage in the NYPD followed this pipeline, Haque estimated. Islam, the officer killed last week, began his career as a school safety officer after immigrating to the U.S. about 16 years ago.

The visible growth of Bangladeshis in the NYPD has helped many aspire to leadership roles in the department, just as generations of Irish, Italian and Latino immigrants did before them.

Among the uniformed officers with Bangladeshi roots are 10 detectives, 82 sergeants, 20 lieutenants and four inspectors, said Sgt. Ershadur Siddique, current president of the Bangladeshi American Police Association. The department’s uniformed ranks are roughly 38% white, 33% Hispanic, 17% Black and nearly 12% Asian, according to NYPD data.

Around 2 a.m., noisy revelers emerging from clubs and bars packed the sidewalks of U Street in Washington, many of them seeking a late-night slice or falafel. A robust but not unusual contingent of city police cruisers lingered around the edges of the crowds. At other late-night hot spots, nearly identical scenes unfolded.

What wasn’t apparent in Friday’s earliest hours: any sort of security lockdown by a multiagency flood of uniformed federal law enforcement officers. That’s what President Donald Trump had promised Thursday, starting at midnight, in the administration’s latest move to impose its will on the nation’s capital.

In short, that law enforcement surge to take control of the District of Columbia’s streets did not appear to unfold on schedule. A two-hour city tour, starting around 1 a.m. Friday, revealed no overt or visible law enforcement presence other than members of the Metropolitan Police Department, the city’s police force.

That still might change in the coming evenings as Trump puts into action his long-standing plans to “take over” a capital city he has repeatedly slammed as unsafe, filthy and badly run. According to his Thursday declaration, the security lockdown will run for seven days, “with the option to extend as needed.” In an online post Saturday, the Republican president said the Democratic-led city would soon be one of the country’s safest and he announced a White House news conference for Monday, though he offered no details.

On Friday night, a White House official said Thursday night’s operations included arrests for possession of two stolen firearms, suspected fentanyl and marijuana. The official was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. The official said more than 120 members of various federal agencies — the Secret Service, the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service — were to be on duty Friday night, upping the complement of federal officers involved.

“This is the first step in stopping the violent crime that has been plaguing the streets of Washington, D.C.,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who publicly faced off against Trump in 2020 when he called in a massive federal law enforcement response to disperse crowds of protesters, has not said a public word since Trump’s declaration. The police department has gone similarly silent.

The catalyst for this latest round of takeover drama was the assault last weekend on a high-profile member of the bureaucracy-slashing Department of Government Efficiency by a group of teenagers in an attempted carjacking.

Police arrested two 15-year-olds and were seeking others. Trump quickly renewed his calls for the federal government to seize control.

“If D.C. doesn’t get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they’re not going to get away with it anymore,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. He later told reporters he was considering everything from repealing Washington’s limited “home rule” autonomy to “bringing in the National Guard, maybe very quickly.”

The threats come at a time when Bowser’s government can legitimately claim to have reduced the number of homicides and carjackings, both of which spiked in 2023. The number of carjackings overall dropped significantly the following year in 2024, from 957 to just under 500, and is on track to decline again this year, with less than 200 recorded so far more than halfway through the year.

The portion of juveniles arrested for carjacking, though, has remained above 50%, and Bowser’s government has taken steps to reign in a new phenomenon of rowdy teenagers causing disarray and disturbances in public spaces. Emergency legislation passed by the D.C. Council this summer imposed tighter youth curfew restrictions and empowered Police Chief Pamela Smith to declare temporary juvenile curfew zones for four days at a time. In those areas, a gathering of nine or more under the age of 18 is unlawful after 8 p.m.

Trump is within his powers in deploying federal law enforcement assets on D.C. streets. He could deploy the National Guard, although that is not one of the dozen participating agencies listed in his declaration. The first Trump administration called in the National Guard during Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 and again on Jan. 6, 2021, when his supporters overran the Capitol.

Further steps, including taking over the police department, would require a declaration of emergency. Legal experts believe that would most likely be challenged in court. Such an approach would fit the general pattern of Trump’s second term in office, when he has declared states of emergency on issues ranging from border protection to economic tariffs. In many cases, he moved forward while the courts sorted it out.

That law was specific to Washington, not other communities in the United States that have their own home rule powers but generally retain representation in their state legislatures, said Monica Hopkins, executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia.

Signed into law by President Richard Nixon, the measure allowed D.C. residents to elect their own mayor, council and local commissioners. The district had been previously run by federally appointed commissioners and members of Congress, some of whom balked at having to deal with potholes and other details of running a city of 700,000 residents.

An executive order signed by President Donald Trump late Thursday aims to give political appointees power over the billions of dollars in grants awarded by federal agencies. Scientists say it threatens to undermine the process that has helped make the U.S. the world leader in research and development.

The order requires all federal agencies, including FEMA, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, to appoint officials responsible for reviewing federal funding opportunities and grants, so that they “are consistent with agency priorities and the national interest.”

It also requires agencies to make it so that current and future federal grants can be terminated at any time — including during the grant period itself.

Agencies cannot announce new funding opportunities until the new protocols are in place, according to the order. The Trump administration said these changes are part of an effort to “strengthen oversight” and “streamline agency grantmaking.” Scientists say the order will cripple America’s scientific engine by placing control over federal research funds in the hands of people who are influenced by politics and lack relevant expertise.

“This is taking political control of a once politically neutral mechanism for funding science in the U.S.,” said Joseph Bak-Coleman, a scientist studying group decision-making at the University of Washington.

The changes will delay grant review and approval, slowing “progress for cures and treatments that patients and families across the country urgently need,” said the Association of American Medical Colleges in a statement.

The administration has already terminated thousands of research grants at agencies like the NSF and NIH, including on topics like transgender health, vaccine hesitancy, misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion.

The order could affect emergency relief grants doled out by FEMA, public safety initiatives funded by the Department of Justice and public health efforts supported by the Centers for Disease Control. Experts say the order is likely to be challenged in court.

The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to halt a court order restricting immigration stops that swept up at least two U.S. citizens in Southern California.

The emergency petition comes after an appeals court refused to lift a temporary restraining order barring authorities from stopping or arresting people based solely on factors like what language speak or where they work.

The move is the latest in a string of emergency appeals from the Trump administration to the high court, which has recently sided with the Republican president in a number of high-profile cases.

The Justice Department argued that federal agents are allowed to consider those factors when ramping up enforcement of immigration laws in Los Angeles, an area it considers a “top enforcement priority.”

Trump officials asked the justices to immediately halt the order from U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong in Los Angeles. She found a “mountain of evidence” that enforcement tactics were violating the U.S. Constitution in what the plaintiffs called “roving patrols.”
Her ruling came in a lawsuit filed by immigrant advocacy groups who accused President Donald Trump’s administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

Trump’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to immediately halt Frimpong’s order, arguing that it puts a “straitjacket” on agents in an area with a large number of people in the U.S. illegally.

“No one thinks that speaking Spanish or working in construction always creates reasonable suspicion ... But in many situations, such factors—alone or in combination—can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States,” Sauer wrote.

He also argued that the order “flouted” a recent Supreme Court decision restricting judges from handing down universal injunctions, since it restricted stops in the entire region rather than only the plaintiffs.

Department of Homeland Security attorneys have said immigration officers target people based on illegal presence in the U.S., not skin color, race or ethnicity.

The order from Frimpong, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, bars authorities from using factors like apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone’s occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion for detention.

The Los Angeles region has been a battleground for the Trump administration after its aggressive immigration strategy spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks.

Plaintiffs on the lawsuit before Frimpong included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens. One was Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a June 13 video being seized by federal agents as he yelled, “I was born here in the states, East LA bro!”

He was released about 20 minutes later after showing agents his identification, as was another citizen stopped at a car wash, according to the lawsuit.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he will impose a 100% tariff on computer chips, raising the specter of higher prices for electronics, autos, household appliances and other essential products dependent on the processors powering the digital age.

“We’ll be putting a tariff of approximately 100% on chips and semiconductors,” Trump said in the Oval Office while meeting with Apple CEO Tim Cook. “But if you’re building in the United States of America, there’s no charge.”

The announcement came more than three months after Trump temporarily exempted most electronics from his administration’s most onerous tariffs.

The Republican president said companies that make computer chips in the U.S. would be spared the import tax. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a shortage of computer chips increased the price of autos and contributed to higher inflation.

Investors seemed to interpret the potential tariff exemptions as a positive for Apple and other major tech companies that have been making huge financial commitments to manufacture more chips and other components in the U.S..

Big Tech already has made collective commitments to invest about $1.5 trillion in the U.S. since Trump moved back into the White House in January. That figure includes a $600 billion promise from Apple after the iPhone maker boosted its commitment by tacking another $100 billion on to a previous commitment made in February.

Now the question is whether the deal brokered between Cook and Trump will be enough to insulate the millions of iPhones made in China and India from the tariffs that the administration has already imposed and reduce the pressure on the company to raise prices on the new models expected to be unveiled next month.

Wall Street certainly seems to think so. After Apple’s stock price gained 5% in Wednesday regular trading sessions, the shares rose by another 3% in extended trading after Trump announced some tech companies won’t be hit with the latest tariffs while Cook stood alongside him.

The shares of AI chipmaker Nvidia, which also has recently made big commitments to the U.S., rose slightly in extended trading to add to the $1 trillion gain in market value the Silicon Valley company has made since the start of Trump’s second administration.

The stock price of computer chip pioneer Intel, which has fallen on hard times, also climbed in extended trading.

Inquiries sent to chip makers Nvidia and Intel were not immediately answered. The chip industry’s main trade group, the Semiconductor Industry Association, declined to comment on Trump’s latest tariffs.

Demand for computer chips has been climbing worldwide, with sales increasing 19.6% in the year-ended in June, according to the World Semiconductor Trade Statistics organization.

Trump’s tariff threats mark a significant break from existing plans to revive computer chip production in the U.S. that were drawn up during the administration of President Joe Biden.

Since taking over from Biden, Trump has been deploying tariffs to incentivize more domestic production. Essentially, the president is betting that the threat of dramatically higher chip costs would force most companies to open factories domestically, despite the risk that tariffs could squeeze corporate profits and push up prices for mobile phones, TVs and refrigerators.

By contrast, the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act that Biden signed into law in 2022 provided more than $50 billion to support new computer chip plants, fund research and train workers for the industry. The mix of funding support, tax credits and other financial incentives were meant to draw in private investment, a strategy that Trump has vocally opposed.

The Titan submersible disaster could have been prevented, the U.S. Coast Guard said in a report Tuesday that held OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush responsible for ignoring safety warnings, design flaws and crucial oversight which, had he survived, may have resulted in criminal charges.

Rush and four passengers were killed instantly deep below the North Atlantic in June 2023 when Titan suffered a catastrophic implosion as it descended to the wreck of the Titanic. A multiday search for survivors off Canada grabbed international headlines, and the tragedy led to lawsuits and calls for tighter regulation of the burgeoning private deep sea expedition industry.

The Coast Guard determined that safety procedures at OceanGate, a private company based in Washington state, were “critically flawed” and found “glaring disparities” between safety protocols and actual practices.

Jason Neubauer of the Marine Board of Investigation said the findings will help avoid future tragedies.

“There is a need for stronger oversight and clear options for operators who are exploring new concepts outside of the existing regulatory framework,” he said in a statement.

Salvatore Mercogliano, a professor of maritime history at Campbell University in North Carolina, said OceanGate was able to exploit gray areas in maritime law that made it unclear who was responsible for enforcing regulations.

Now, he said, the Coast Guard and other international maritime agencies will be looking to improve coordination and implement clearer mechanisms for enforcement, especially for private submarines.

“Unfortunately almost all maritime regulation is written in blood, and something had to happen first,” Mercogliano said.

OceanGate suspended operations in July 2023. Spokesperson Christian Hammond said the company has been wound down and was fully cooperating with the investigation, and he offered condolences to the families of those who died and everyone affected.

Investigators pointed to a culture at OceanGate of downplaying, ignoring and even falsifying key safety information to improve its reputation and evade scrutiny from regulators.

The company ignored “red flags” and had a “toxic workplace culture,” with firings of senior staff and the looming threat of dismissal used to dissuade employees and contractors from expressing safety concerns.

Rush, a former flight test engineer for fighter jets, founded the company in 2009 after years of experience in aerospace and aviation.

The Marine Board concluded that Rush had an “escalating disregard for established safety protocols,” which contributed to the deaths. If Rush were alive, the board would have passed the case to the U.S. Department of Justice and he may have faced criminal charges, it said.

The company reclassified submersible passengers as “mission specialists” to bypass regulations on small passenger vessels and claim its subs were oceanic research vessels. Former mission specialists and OceanGate employees said their participation was “purely for a ride in the submersible, not for scientific research,” the report said.

Rush and OceanGate received numerous warnings about Titan’s fraudulent classifications. In 2017, Rush was told by a Coast Guard Reserve officer hired by OceanGate that his planned Titanic dive would be illegal.

Rush said “he would buy a congressman” if ever confronted by regulators, the officer testified.

Over the years the company resorted to increasingly deceptive strategies, the report said. By 2021 an OceanGate attorney falsely told a Virginia federal court, which was presiding over Titan’s authorization to conduct dives, that the vessel was registered in the Bahamas.

To obtain his credentials, Rush submitted a fraudulent sea service letter signed by OceanGate’s chief operations officer to the Coast Guard’s National Maritime Center, the report said. In it Rush claimed past service as a crew member on Titan and misrepresented the size of the vessel, when in fact it had never been registered or admeasured.

Mounting financial pressures in 2023 led to a decision by OceanGate to store the submersible outdoors in the Canadian winter, and the hull was exposed to temperature fluctuations that also compromised the vessel’s integrity, the report said.

The implosion also killed French underwater explorer Paul-Henri Nargeolet, known as “Mr. Titanic”; British adventurer Hamish Harding; and two members of a prominent Pakistani family, Shahzada Dawood and his son Suleman Dawood.

Nargeolet’s family filed a $50 million lawsuit last year alleging that the crew experienced “terror and mental anguish” before the disaster. The lawsuit accused OceanGate of gross negligence.

President Donald Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch Friday, a day after the newspaper published a story reporting on his ties to wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The move came shortly after the Justice Department asked a federal court on Friday to unseal grand jury transcripts in Epstein’s sex trafficking case, as the administration seeks to contain the firestorm that erupted after it announced that it would not be releasing additional files from the case, despite previously pledging to do so.

The controversy has created a major fissure between Trump and his loyal base, with some of his most vocal supporters slamming the White House for the way it has handled the case, and questioning why Trump would not want the documents made public.

Trump had promised to sue the Wall Street Journal almost immediately after the paper put a new spotlight on his well-documented relationship with Epstein by publishing an article that described a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Trump’s name and was included in a 2003 album compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday.

Trump denied writing the letter, calling the story “false, malicious, and defamatory.”

The suit, filed in filed in federal court in Miami, accuses the paper and its reporters of having “knowingly and recklessly” published “numerous false, defamatory, and disparaging statements,” which, it alleges, caused “overwhelming financial and reputational harm” to the president.

In a post on his Truth Social site, Trump cast the lawsuit as part of his efforts to punish news outlets, including ABC and CBS, which both reached multimillion-dollar settlement deals with the president after he took them to court.

“This lawsuit is filed not only on behalf of your favorite President, ME, but also in order to continue standing up for ALL Americans who will no longer tolerate the abusive wrongdoings of the Fake News Media,” he wrote.

A spokesperson for Dow Jones, the Journal’s publisher, responded Friday night, “We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit.”

The letter revealed by The Wall Street Journal was reportedly collected by disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell as part of a birthday album for Epstein years before the wealthy financier was first arrested in 2006 and subsequently had a falling-out with Trump.

The letter bearing Trump’s name includes text framed by the outline of what appears to be a hand-drawn naked woman and ends with, “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret,” according to the newspaper.

Trump denied writing the letter and promised to sue. He said he spoke to both to the paper’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, and its top editor, Emma Tucker, before the story was published and told them the letter was “fake.”

“These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don’t draw pictures,” the president insisted.

The outlet described the contents of the letter but did not publish a photo showing it entirely or provide details on how it came to learn about it.

In the lawsuit, Trump takes issue with that fact. The defendants, it attests, “failed to attach the letter, failed to attach the alleged drawing, failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter, and failed to explain how this purported letter was obtained.”

“The reason for those failures is because no authentic letter or drawing exists,” it goes on to charge, alleging that the “Defendants concocted this story to malign President Trump’s character and integrity and deceptively portray him in a false light.”

Earlier Friday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche filed motions in a separate federal court urging them to unseal the Epstein transcripts as well as those in the case against Maxwell, who was convicted of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein. Epstein killed himself in 2019 shortly after his arrest while awaiting trial.

The Justice Department’s announcement that it would not be making public any more Epstein files enraged parts of Trump’s base in part because members of his own administration had hyped the expected release and stoked conspiracies around the well-connected financier.

The Justice Department said in the court filings that it will work with with prosecutors in New York to make appropriate redactions of victim-related information and other personally identifying information before transcripts are released.

“Transparency in this process will not be at the expense of our obligation under the law to protect victims,” Blanche wrote.

But despite the new push to release the grand jury transcripts, the administration has not announced plans to reverse course and release other evidence in its possession. Attorney General Pam Bondi had hyped the release of more materials after the first Epstein files disclosure in February sparked outrage because it contained no new revelations.

A judge would have to approve the release of the grand jury transcripts, and it’s likely to be a lengthy process to decide what can become public and to make redactions to protect sensitive witness and victim information.

The records would show testimony of witnesses and other evidence that was presented by prosecutions during the secret grand jury proceedings, when a panel decides whether there is enough evidence to bring an indictment, or a formal criminal charge

Appellate court judges expressed broad skepticism Thursday over President Donald Trump’s legal rationale for his most expansive round of tariffs.

Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration’s insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval, and it hammered its invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so.

“IEEPA doesn’t even mention the word ‘tariffs’ anywhere,” Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said, in a sign of the panel’s incredulity to a government attorney’s arguments.

Brett Shumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing “no president has ever read IEEPA this way” but contended it was nonetheless lawful.

The 1977 law, signed by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war.Trump says the country’s trade deficit is so serious that it likewise qualifies for the law’s protection.

In sharp exchanges with Shumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified.

“If the president says there’s a problem with our military readiness,” Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, “and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn’t seem to necessarily deal with (it).”

Shumate said Congress’ passage of IEEPA gave the president “broad and flexible” power to respond to an emergency, but that “the president is not asking for unbounded authority.”

But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump’s maneuver as a “breathtaking” power grab that amounted to saying “the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.”

No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges’ deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: “To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America’s big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE “DEAD,” WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’'

In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that “a national emergency exists” necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, was unconvinced, however, ruling in May that Trump exceeded his powers.

The issue now rests with the appeals judges.

The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday.

The case centers on Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn’t cover other tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, nor ones imposed on China during Trump’s first term, and continued by President Joe Biden.

The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 U.S. states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but over decades, lawmakers have ceded power over trade policy to the White House.

Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University.

The Senate has confirmed former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro as the top federal prosecutor for the nation’s capital, filling the post after President Donald Trump withdrew his controversial first pick, conservative activist Ed Martin Jr.

Pirro, a former county prosecutor and elected judge, was confirmed 50-45. Before becoming the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia in May, she co-hosted the Fox News show “The Five” on weekday evenings, where she frequently interviewed Trump.

Trump yanked Martin’s nomination after a key Republican senator said he could not support him due to Martin’s outspoken support for rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Martin now serves as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney.

In 2021, voting technology company Smartmatic USA sued Fox News, Pirro and others for spreading false claims that the company helped “steal” the 2020 presidential election from Trump. The company’s libel suit, filed in a New York state court, sought $2.7 billion from the defendants.

Last month, Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send Pirro’s nomination to the Senate floor after Democrats walked out to protest Emil Bove’s nomination to become a federal appeals court judge.

Pirro, a 1975 graduate of Albany Law School, has significantly more courtroom experience than Martin, who had never served as a prosecutor or tried a case before taking office in January. She was elected as a judge in New York’s Westchester County Court in 1990 before serving three terms as the county’s elected district attorney.

In the final minutes of his first term as president, Trump issued a pardon to Pirro’s ex-husband, Albert Pirro, who was convicted in 2000 on conspiracy and tax evasion charges.

President Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people who are in the U.S. illegally will remain blocked as an order from one judge went into effect Friday and another seemed inclined to follow suit.

U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week his order went into effect.

“The judge’s order protects every single child whose citizenship was called into question by this illegal executive order,” Cody Wofsy, the ACLU attorney representing children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said. “The government has not appealed and has not sought emergency relief so this injunction is now in effect everywhere in the country.”

The Trump administration could still appeal or even ask that LaPlante’s order be narrowed but the effort to end birthright citizenship for children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily can’t take effect for now. The Justice Department didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

Meanwhile, a judge in Boston heard arguments from more than a dozen states who say Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for essential services. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin was asked to consider either keeping in place the nationwide injunction he granted earlier or consider a request from the government either to narrow the scope of that order or stay it altogether. Sorokin, located in Boston, did not immediately rule but seemed to be receptive to arguments from states to keep the injunction in place.

Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be “tailored to the States’ purported financial injuries.”

Much of the hearing was focused on what a narrower ruling would look like. The plaintiffs raised concerns that some alternatives floated by the Trump administration — such as giving children in states impacted by the birthright citizenship order social security numbers, but not citizenship — would be costly and unworkable.

They said such a system would burden these states with having to set up new administrative systems, sow confusion among the parents whose children are impacted and possibly turn these states into magnets for families from other states looking to access the benefits.

Government lawyers didn’t seem tied to any one alternative, but told Sorokin the scope of his injunction should be limited. When pressed on how they would do that, a lawyer for the government, Eric Hamilton, would only commit to complying with whatever order was issued.

“If the court modifies the preliminary injunction or stays the preliminary injunction, it should be at most tailored to injuries plaintiffs are alleging which are primary financial,” Hamilton said.

Sorokin pushed back, at one point using an analogy of someone who sued a neighbor over loud music. The defendant offers to build a wall to limit the noise but Sorokin wondered how they could ensure it met the zoning code and was something the defendant could afford.

“What you are telling me is we will do it but, in response to my question, you have no answer how you will do it,” Sorokin said.

LaPlante issued the ruling last week p rohibiting Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit, and a Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off.

The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn’t rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Two Colorado deputies have been disciplined for violating state law by helping federal agents make immigration arrests, and their sheriff says officers from other agencies have done the same.

One of the deputies, Alexander Zwinck, was sued by Colorado’s attorney general last week, after his cooperation with federal immigration agents on a drug task force was revealed following the June arrest of a college student from Brazil with an expired visa.

Following an internal investigation, a second Mesa County Sheriff’s Office deputy and task force member, Erik Olson, was also found to have shared information. The two deputies used a Signal chat to relay information to federal agents, according to documents released Wednesday by the sheriff’s office.

Zwinck was placed on three weeks of unpaid leave, and Olson was given two weeks of unpaid leave, Mesa County Sheriff Todd Rowell said in a statement. Both were removed from the task force.

Two supervisors also were disciplined. One was suspended without pay for two days, and another received a letter of reprimand. A third supervisor received counseling.

State laws push back against Trump crackdown

The lawsuit and disciplinary actions come as lawmakers in Colorado and other Democratic-led states have crafted legislation intended to push back against President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Since Trump took office, pro-immigrant bills have advanced through legislatures in Illinois, Vermont, California, Connecticut and other states. The measures include stronger protections for immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters.

Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. The Republican also relaxed longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals.

Zwinck was sued under a new state law signed by Gov. Jared Polis about two weeks before the arrest of the student from Brazil. It bars local government employees including law enforcement from sharing identifying information about people with federal immigration officials. Previously, only state agencies were barred from doing that. It’s one of a series of laws limiting the state’s involvement in immigration enforcement passed over the years that has drawn criticism and a lawsuit from the federal government.

The U.S. Department of Justice has also sued Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws.

Officers say they were following established procedures

Zwinck and Olson told officials they thought they were operating according to long-standing procedures.

However, the internal investigation found they had both received and read two emails prior to the passage of the new law about previous limits on cooperation with immigration officials. The most recent was sent on Jan. 30, 2025, after an official for Homeland Security Investigations, part of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, had asked state and local law enforcement officers at a law enforcement meeting to contact HSI or ICE if they arrested a person for a violent crime who was believed not to be a citizen, the investigation documents said. The email said not to contact HSI or ICE.

Zwinck said he didn’t know about the new law and was not interested in immigration enforcement.

“When I was out there, I wanted to find drugs, guns and bad guys,” Zwinck said at a July 23 disciplinary hearing. “And sending that information to HSI they provided the ability to give me real time background information on the person I was in contact with,” he said.

Olson, who said he had been with the sheriff’s office 18 years, testified at his disciplinary hearing that it was “standard practice” to send information up to federal agents during traffic stops.

“It was routine for ICE to show up on the back end of a traffic stop to do their thing,” Olson said. “I truly thought what we were doing was condoned by our supervision and lawful.”

A lawyer at a law firm listed as representing both deputies, Michael Lowe, did not immediately return a telephone call or email seeking comment.

Rowell said drug task force members from other law enforcement agencies, including the Colorado State Patrol, also shared information with immigration agents on the Signal chat. The state patrol denied the claim.

The sheriff faulted Attorney General Phil Weiser for filing the lawsuit against Zwinck before a local internal investigation was complete. He called on the Democrat, who is running for governor, to drop it.

“As it stands, the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General’s Office sends a demoralizing message to law enforcement officers across Colorado — that the law may be wielded selectively and publicly for maximum political effect rather than applied fairly and consistently,” he said.

Weiser said last week that he was investigating whether other officers in the chat violated the law.

Spokesperson Lawrence Pacheco said Weiser was presented with evidence of a “blatant violation of state law” and had to act.

“The attorney general has a duty to enforce state laws and protect Coloradans and he’ll continue to do so,” Pacheco said.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to impose his threatened 50% tariffs on Brazil, setting a legal rationale that Brazil’s policies and criminal prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro constitute an economic emergency under a 1977 law.

Trump had threatened the tariffs July 9 in a letter to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. But the legal basis of that threat was an earlier executive order premised on trade imbalances being a threat to the U.S. economy. But America ran a $6.8 billion trade surplus last year with Brazil, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

A statement by the White House said Brazil’s judiciary had tried to coerce social media companies and block their users, though it did not name the companies involved, X and Rumble.

Trump appears to identify with Bolsonaro, who attempted to overturn the results of his 2022 loss to Lula. Similarly, Trump was indicted in 2023 for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

Lula left an event about animal rights early on Wednesday after Trump’s move, saying he needed to defend “the sovereignty of the Brazilian people in light of the measures announced by the President of the United States.”

The order would apply an additional 40% tariff on the baseline 10% tariff already being levied by Trump. But not all goods imported from Brazil would face the 40% tariff: Civil aircraft and parts, aluminum, tin, wood pulp, energy products and fertilizers are among the products being excluded.

The order said the tariffs would go into effect seven days after its signing on Wednesday.

Also Wednesday, Trump’s Treasury Department announced sanctions on Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes over alleged suppression of freedom of expression and Bolsonaro’s ongoing trial.

De Moraes oversees the criminal case against Bolsonaro, who is accused of masterminding a plot to stay in power despite his 2022 defeat.

On July 18, the State Department announced visa restrictions on Brazilian judicial officials, including de Moraes.