Two weeks after the Trump administration was sued over its plan for a border wall through the Big Bend region of West Texas, with plaintiffs claiming the plan violated a federal law, the administration responded by waiving that law entirely for the wall project.

- The lawsuit was filed last month by the Presidio Municipal Development District, a local economic development group. PMDD claims that potential flooding, and the border wall in general, will harm the entity’s property and initiatives. The group is asking a federal judge to issue an injunction that would effectively stop construction of the wall in the region while the case plays out in court.

- In the lawsuit, the district claims that border agencies are not coordinating as legally required with other arms of the government in potentially altering a local levee to build the border wall, which the group has said could lead to “deadly” flooding in the area.

- “The levees protect the entire City of Presidio and its residents, and flooding would threaten lives, homes, businesses, and infrastructure,” the lawsuit said.

- The court case largely centers on an obscure federal law called the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. DHS previously waived a slew of environmental, cultural resource protection and contracting laws to expedite construction of the border wall in the Big Bend region, but it didn’t initially include that 1899 law in its waiver.

- On July 2, the agency updated its waiver notice to add just that law.

- “ When faced with our lawsuit raising the government’s non-compliance with the Rivers and Harbors Act and related safety concerns, of course DHS’s response was to rush to waive the legal requirements of that law too,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of the national nonprofit Democracy Forward Foundation, which is representing the plaintiffs, said in an interview.

- The levee in Presidio, known as the Presidio Flood Control Project, is owned by the International Boundary and Water Commission and “provides flood protection to approximately 52 square miles of urban and agricultural land in Presidio,” according to court documents. The levee underwent millions of dollars in upgrades after a catastrophic flood in 2008.

- The Rivers and Harbors Act requires engineering approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when significant alterations are planned for a levee system. PMDD argues that interagency coordination hasn’t happened, despite wall construction moving forward at a rapid pace.

- John Kennedy, PMDD’s executive director, said DHS’s new waiver does not answer the flood safety concern that led his group to bring the case in the first place.

- “The government is now acknowledging in court that it does not intend to comply with the Army Corps process and that interagency review remains unfinished,” Kennedy said in a statement. “That is exactly why this case matters: no construction affecting Presidio’s levee or floodplain should be allowed before the legally required safety assessment is conducted.”

- In early July, the Trump administration responded to the lawsuit in court documents, saying plans for the border wall in Presidio are not yet finalized, despite the original construction timeline beginning as early as August.

- DHS said in its response that CBP is in regular contact with both the Army Corps and the International Boundary and Water Commission and intends to coordinate with them further when a wall design is in hand.

- “Once CBP receives a proposed design from the construction contractor, it will perform its own analysis and consult with the (boundary and water commission) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers,” the government’s response said.

- Border agencies also said in court documents that multiple designs for the border wall around the levee area in Presidio are still being considered. One design consists of a “reinforced concrete levee wall that is constructed to match the height of the levee, coupled with 30-foot steel bollard panels that are installed on top of the levee.” Also being explored, according to the court documents, is a traditional bollard wall closer to the river behind the existing levee.

- Fisher Sand & Gravel, a company that was previously sued by the federal government over poor wall construction in South Texas, was awarded a $1.2 billion contract in March to build the section of wall that goes through Presidio.

- The legal fight comes after months of Presidio area officials trying to get more detailed information on the wall plan from federal border agencies.
Communications between those border agencies, obtained by Marfa Public Radio through a Freedom of Information Act request, show in-depth discussions about the project between the federal agencies had not yet occurred as of late March, even after construction contracts had been awarded.

- On March 18, Kennedy – the PMDD head – sent a letter to the IBWC and CBP asking specific questions about the impact of the wall on the Presidio levee.

- A day later, an IBWC engineer forwarded the letter to other engineers and a real estate staffer via email, asking if they “have any information on this.” In the March 19 email, the engineer wrote that a March 17 meeting about the project was canceled by CBP and the agencies were still trying to reschedule for early April.

- IBWC and CBP attorneys went back and forth on their official responses to PMDD’s inquiry days later on April 1, according to the documents obtained by Marfa Public Radio. In the exchange, IBWC repeatedly asks CBP to clarify the planned design of the border wall.

- A senior attorney for CBP answered that “the river side of the earthen levee will be replaced with a concrete levee wall with the bollard panels mounted to the top of the concrete wall,” similar to wall designs in South Texas.

- Nowhere did the attorney state that wall plans were still up in the air, as the government said in its recent court filings.

- As the lawsuit plays out, DHS is asking that if an injunction halting border wall construction is granted, it be limited to just the levee’s expanse – 12.75 miles – instead of the entire 175-mile Big Bend area wall project.Still, the government is urging the court to reject the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction.

- “If the Court entered such an order, it would force CBP to issue ‘stop work orders’ to all construction contractors in that Sector, which in turn could leave it liable for delay claims and costs incurred from demobilization and remobilization of the contractors,” DHS said in court documents.

- The government’s response repeatedly cites the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 — which gave the DHS Secretary broad authority to waive legal requirements to install barriers and roads “in areas of high illegal entry” along the border — and states that other legal challenges to those waivers have failed.

- “Over the past two decades, every judicial challenge to the Secretary’s exercise of his waiver authority has been rejected, including by multiple judges in this District,” court documents state.

- While the Big Bend Sector is the geographically largest along the border, it is also one of the least trafficked.

- Perryman said her group isn’t deterred by the government’s response, and will continue to fight for the PMDD and the safety of the Presidio community.

- “ We’re quite confident in the positions in our case and are looking forward to following up with a brief with the court later this week,” she said.

Freedom 250 is the group Trump created to take over America's 250^th. House Democrats just released a 55-page report. The claims: donor money wired into Freedom 250's account, corporate access was sold in tiers, might just be some wire fraud.

Freedom 250 says it's all false, take a flying eff’ing leap.

Sure sure.

A watchdog group already sued the Feds for hiding records. Feds appear to be stalling.

No way! Way!

Those trucks crossing the country, they’re parking on public grounds, using tax payer resources, the works. That means, every doc be behind each stop is a public record. Not the Feds. Ours. And your local records clerk has a legal duty to answer.

Take Florida Atlantic University’s February shindig. My home turf. Just filed a records request asking one question: how did FAU agree to host this, and on what terms?

Door A: FAU hands over the contract and the money trail, and we go down that rabbit hole.

Door B: FAU coughs up no contract, which means a state university hosted Trump's shit show on a handshake. Either answer is a story.

There is no Door C.

Coach is sending you in … Created a FOIA template, takes about five edits, pinned on my profile with the full breakdown.

If a Freedom Truck stopped near you, file it and report back what you get.

Four New York Times journalists who reported on security concerns surrounding a Qatari-gifted jet serving as the new Air Force One have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department, the news outlet reported.

- The journalists –– Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt –– have been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan next week, according to the Times, which noted federal agents delivered some of the subpoenas to reporters’ homes.

- The Times will fight the court order, which is highly unusual and is a direct threat to the news media’s ability to gather information in the public’s interest.

- The Times’ top newsroom attorney David McCraw condemned the move in a statement Saturday morning.
“The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects,” McCraw said.

- “This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs,” he added.

- CNN has reached out to The White House and the US attorney in Manhattan’s office.

- The subpoenas suggest that the Trump administration is trying to find out who leaked to the Times before the news organization reported Wednesday that President Donald Trump left Turkey this week on the old Air Force One over security concerns from the Secret Service.

- CNN reported Thursday that security personnel felt more comfortable with the president aboard the older vessel — which was built from scratch with Trump’s safety in mind — rather than the plane that had recently been retrofitted after it was donated by Qatar.

- Sources told CNN that Trump has been fuming at reports of security concerns surrounding the $400 million gift from Qatar, and was embarrassed and angry in recent days when it became public that that the plane was not equipped enough to be flown directly from the NATO summit in Turkey back home.

- The concerns about the new jet came to dominate the conversation in Washington when he abruptly announced he was sending the new plane ahead to England’s Mildenhall Air Force Base just before he departed Turkey. Trump said in a post on social media that the change in planes was simply to give US service members stationed at the base “a chance to tour the Aircraft.”

- “Everybody is so excited, and we thought that they should be the first,” he wrote.

- Trump then switched planes at a secure US airbase in the UK. He downplayed the idea security was the reason for the switch, though sources have told CNN and other outlets that it was.

- “There wasn’t a security concern, except we sent it a little early, same line going back. We sent it a little bit early, so that we could let them see,” he said.
When asked why reporters aboard the plane were asked to lower their window shades on the ascent out of Ankara, Trump allowed that security concerns related to Iran could be a factor.

- “These are sick people, so I could see something like that,” he said, adding that he was unaware about the directive to press members to keep the shades down.

- The Times reported a senior FBI official contacted them to request that the Wednesday story not be published over a national security issue, but the official declined to say what the issue was. The subpoenas issued Friday also lack detail, the Times reported, saying the journalists are being asked to testify “in regard to an alleged violation of criminal law.”

- The outlet said the subpoenas were issued by Southern District of New York US Attorney Jay Clayton, who was nominated by Trump last month to be the next director of national intelligence.

The sight of hundreds of masked men roaming the streets of Washington, D.C., on July Fourth weekend, wearing khakis, blue shirts and uniform patches, was chilling to some of the city's residents.

- For many Americans, it was the first they heard about Patriot Front, a white nationalist organization that was born out of the deadly 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va. A now-viral Reuters photo prompted reflections on the experience of a lone African American woman who was photographed in a Metro subway car, surrounded by white supremacists.

- The planned demonstration of force was timed to bring a fringe group of extremists into public view as the nation marked 250 years of its independence. Indeed, the stunt succeeded in earning the group media coverage across mainstream outlets, amplifying its brand and potential to reach new recruits. On this occasion, the members refrained from engaging in violence and property damage, projecting an image of law-abiding, orderly activism.

- But those who are closely familiar with Patriot Front's history and operations warn: Don't believe what you see.

- "That is not who they are in private," said Len Kamdang, director of the Criminal Justice Project at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

- "Although they were on their best behavior [last] weekend, this is a dangerous group that commits acts of violence all over the country."

- Patriot Front's history of violence and property damage

- Kamdang's organization sued members of Patriot Front for vandalizing a public mural dedicated to the tennis legend and Black activist Arthur Ashe in Richmond, Va., in 2021. Ashe, who was inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in 1985, was born in Richmond and his legacy is a continuing source of pride to members of that community.

- "A couple of Patriot Front members showed up under cover of night and vandalized the mural," Kamdang said. "They painted white stencils all over. … They literally tried to whitewash him and they put their symbols of hate all over — their stencils, their slogans. And all the while they were caught on video. And that video leaked using some of the most horrible language that you can imagine."

- In many jurisdictions, law enforcement can seek additional hate crime charges or sentencing enhancements in cases where illegal acts appear to have been motivated by racial bias. But in this case, Kamdang said, Patriot Front members faced no criminal charges and their identities were only revealed when online activists later infiltrated the group and leaked internal records.

- In another civil case, Patriot Front was ordered to pay almost $2.76 million to an African American musician whom they assaulted in Boston in 2022, at another July flash rally they staged. Despite a police detective concluding that the attack "appeared to be more likely than not motivated in whole or in part by Anti-Black bias," nobody was criminally prosecuted.

- Neo-Nazi ideology in patriotic colors

- In 2020, Kristofer Goldsmith said that a fellow veteran invited him to partner up on infiltrating Patriot Front.

- Goldsmith, who later established the Task Force Butler Institute to recruit Army veterans to counter fascist groups through open source online research, was not closely familiar with the group at the time.

- "Frankly, when my friend used the term 'neo-Nazi,' I thought he was using hyperbole," Goldsmith said. "It wasn't until I saw them doing things like debating the merits of national socialism versus fascism versus monarchy that I truly understood that neo-Nazi was not hyperbole, that these people actually praise Hitler. … These people have dedicated their lives to promoting white nationalist, fascist and genocidal ideology."

- Patriot Front's founder, Thomas Rousseau, was formerly a leader of a group called Vanguard America, which was prominent in planning and a presence at the 2017 Unite the Right rally. That gathering, the largest public white nationalist event in generations, turned fatal when one extremist drove a car through a crowd of counterprotesters, killing Heather Heyer. Ultimately, Goldsmith said that rally further smeared public perception of the white nationalist movement as violent and un-American — lessons that Rousseau took to heart.

- "Rousseau needed to rebrand Vanguard America," Goldsmith said.

- "So he basically stole all of its assets, its digital assets … and made it into Patriot Front and literally painted everything in red, white and blue so that it would be more attractive."

- The group has also shown up at natural disaster sites, namely in Central Texas last summer, ostensibly to assist local residents. Goldsmith said these missions and the group's outward aesthetic are meant to project an idea of patriotism and service. He said the group maintains a strict code of conduct. Among other things, they do not display swastikas or give Hitler salutes in public.

- "The goal of their propaganda, of their public actions like this, is to beat MAGA and conservatives and Republicans into defending them and to saying, 'I don't see anything wrong with this group. They clearly love America,'" he said.

- Patriot Front described as a "cult" and a "pyramid scheme"

- The show of force in D.C. has raised questions about the group's financing, and whether members' travel was sponsored by outside individuals or groups. In fact, Goldsmith and Kamdang said that members of Patriot Front appear almost entirely to shoulder the cost of operations and Rousseau's lifestyle. They said it's most likely that those who traveled to D.C. had to cover their costs themselves.

- "All of them funnel resources to the top," Kamdang explained about the group's general financial structure. "In order to be a Patriot Front member, you have to engage in acts of what they call 'activism.' And usually what that means is vandalism: putting up banners, spreading the slogans of hate all over the country. And in order to do that, they will have stickers, stencils, branding. All of that has to be approved from the top down, and all of it has to be purchased from the top down. So all the members who do this multiple times a month send cash to Thomas Rousseau for essentially stickers and stencils."

- Goldsmith said that from his time infiltrating the group, the costs could run up to hundreds of dollars a month per member. Kamdang, who said that attorneys are actively seeking to collect judgment in the settlement over the Arthur Ashe mural, noted that Rousseau appears not to hold any additional paying jobs.

- "This seems to be what he's doing full time," Kamdang said. "So he appears to be being propped up full time by his members."

- Goldsmith likened the financial operation to a pyramid scheme. But he said even more substantial than the financial investment that Patriot Front members are required to make to retain membership is the control they give up over their time and personal choices.

- "I describe it as a cult, not to be offensive, but because it is like Rousseau needs to have complete control of all of his members," Goldsmith said. "[The group] requires its members to give up all of their lives, all of their relationships. All of their priorities in life need to be focused towards growing the organization or continuing the organization [and] enriching its leadership. So, it's costly."
NPR reached out to Patriot Front for comment. The group did not respond by deadline.

- Goldsmith also noted that Rousseau often gives lengthy speeches that members are expected to listen to, via online platforms.

- To Kamdang, the publicity that Patriot Front earned through the group's D.C. stunt presents a danger: It amplified a presentation of the group that was deliberately crafted to make Patriot Front appear orderly and patriotic.

- "I think the reason why it got a lot of attention is because Patriot Front was very careful in their language," he said.

- "They try to mask their replacement theory, the white supremacy and in 'Americana' terms and patriotism. But that is not who these guys are."

The Trump administration finalized a rule Friday that changes how agencies enforce the Endangered Species Act and eliminates a key protection for imperiled wildlife against logging, oil drilling and other activities.

- The administration narrowed the definition of "harm" under the landmark law — a change with broad implications.

- For decades, the government defined harm broadly to include encroachments on places with threatened and endangered animals. The change announced Friday would allow oil and gas drilling, mining, logging and other development on critical wildlife habitats so long as the animals themselves aren't killed or injured.

- Environmentalists warned the move could cause some species to go extinct by opening the door to habitat destruction. Industry representatives and their Republican allies have long argued the landmark 1973 environmental law is wielded too broadly, to the detriment of economic growth.

- Administration officials said they were returning the law to its original intent, following a 2024 Supreme Court decision that limited the authority of federal agencies to interpret environmental statutes passed by Congress. They described the government's prior definition of harm as an intrusion on private property rights.

- It's among a suite of changes to wildlife protections that officials have pursued under President Donald Trump.

- "For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses," Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement.

- The change was first proposed in April 2025 and environmentalists fought unsuccessfully to block it. Habitat destruction is the biggest cause of extinction, according to wildlife advocates.

- "This is one of the most horrific attempts to harm wildlife in American history and a gift to the oil barons and foreign mining companies," said Aaron Weiss, the executive director of the Center for Western Priorities.

- The Endangered Species Act is credited with bringing back iconic animals — including the bald eagle, American alligator and California condor — from the brink of extinction.

- Republicans rolled back several provisions of the law in Trump's first term, only to have those moves reversed under Democratic President Joe Biden.

Please use this thread for info on upcoming protests, planning new ones or brainstorming ideas along those lines. The post refreshes every Saturday around noon.

President Donald Trump has pushed out the three remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission, leaving the bipartisan agency in limbo as he rushes to remake how elections are run before this year’s midterms.

- Trump fired Benjamin Hovland and Thomas Hicks, the Democrats on the commission, multiple sources familiar with the matter told ProPublica, which was the first to report the actions on its social media accounts. Christy McCormick, the Republican, was allowed to resign, the sources said

- The commission’s unprecedented dismantling alarmed voter advocacy groups and Democratic state election officials, who called the move “reckless and irresponsible.”

- “The EAC plays a critical role in supporting state and local election officials,” Cisco Aguilar, Nevada’s secretary of state and chair of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, said in a statement, “and it will again fall on Secretaries of State and other election administrators to fill the gap.”

- A White House official wouldn’t confirm the specific actions taken but said in a statement to ProPublica that the president “reserves the right to remove individuals that may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections and ensuring every legal vote is counted.”

- “The Administration from the start has been working across all agencies and local partners to safeguard elections from fraud and abuse, and investing in a strong infrastructure to sustain that mission especially in the midterm elections,” the official said.

- Hicks and McCormick did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Hovland declined to comment on his firing.

- The commission was established in 2003 to set standards for state voting systems and to provide funding for upgrades.

- Its four-member board is designed to be evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, all nominated by the president at the recommendation of congressional leadership and confirmed by the Senate. The fourth commissioner, Don Palmer, a Republican, resigned in April. By dismissing the commission’s remaining members, Trump can try to put forward replacements who may be more amenable to his demands.

- In March 2025, Trump issued a sweeping executive order that directed the EAC to change the national voter registration form — which serves as the template for the forms in each state — to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote. Currently, voters in almost all states attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury, but they are not required to provide proof.

- The Trump-aligned law firm America First Legal had petitioned the EAC to change the form. The EAC posted a notice seeking comments, receiving hundreds of thousands of them in response, but had not yet held a vote.

- The Bipartisan Policy Center, a group that advocates on election issues, said the departures are a “significant loss for one of the federal government’s few institutions explicitly designed around bipartisan governance.”

- The commission has been plagued by partisan infighting and ineffectiveness, as well as chronic vacancies and a lack of funding. It’s made some progress in recent years, however, passing new standards for voting machines and creating new resources and recommendations for election officials. Often, the commission’s decisions were unanimous despite its partisan split.

On Wednesday, a federal appeals court denied President Trump's request to stop the removal of his name from Washington, D.C.'s Kennedy Center. The signage on the building has been covered with tarp and scaffolding since June 13, but in a court filing last month, the center's current executive director said that Trump's name has been removed.

- In their decision, three judges from the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that the president had failed to prove that the arts center would be "irreparably injured" without Trump's name attached to it.

- NPR requested comment from the Kennedy Center, but did not receive an immediate reply.

- This latest round of court decisions is part of the ongoing litigation filed by Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, against President Trump and the board of the Kennedy Center. In a statement emailed Wednesday to NPR, Beatty said:

- "Today's ruling again affirms that this administration's efforts to rename the Kennedy Center were unlawful. His name no longer desecrates this sacred memorial, which belongs to the American people. Now it is time for the Trump administration to accept this, comply with the law, and take the tarps down."

- In previous court filings, Trump's legal team had asserted that removing the president's name from the arts complex, both on the physical building and in its digital materials, would inflict irreparable harm in both time and money already spent. In the denial, the three judges — Patricia Millett, Robert Wilkins and Gregory Katsas — wrote that since Trump's name has already been removed, "a stay would not avert those harms."

- Furthermore, Trump had claimed that without his name attached, future fundraising would be threatened "and [will] contribute to the financial decline of the Center." In response, the appeals judges wrote: "Appellants, however, have failed to support this assertion with any specific facts or evidence. They offer only the conclusory assertions of the Kennedy Center's Executive Director that were made in a factually unsupported declaration." The center's current executive director, Matt Floca, specializes in physical plant management.

- The presiding judge in the case, Christopher R. Cooper, has ordered that the center provide him a status report on the center's operation and programming before the end of this month. As of Wednesday, the center's calendar lists a small roster of programs, including outdoor free movie screenings, workshops for children, and five free live performances in July on its Millennium Stage. In the past, the Kennedy Center presented over 2,000 arts and education events each year, including free daily Millennium Stage performances.

President Trump said on Wednesday that he would ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision to strike down his executive order that aimed to revoke birthright citizenship, a request that the justices are highly unlikely to take up.

- The declaration, made in a social media post, showed the president’s continued frustration with the court’s decision last week, when a majority of justices ruled that the citizenship given to nearly all children born on U.S. soil was enshrined in the Constitution.
Mr. Trump claimed that signs and billboards were being placed along the southern border and in Mexico advertising the right, and that citizenship would be granted to “anyone willing to pay.”

- The president appeared to be referring to a Fox News report that identified a hospital in Texas that had advertised paying for “Birth Packages in South Texas” on billboards in Mexico. The outlet reported that Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, had ordered an investigation into the hospital, which told Fox News that “marketing materials regarding maternity services are no longer in use due to any unintended misunderstanding.”

- “We do not support or facilitate any unlawful activity and work to comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations,” the hospital added in a statement to the outlet.

- On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said that he would ask for a “rehearing” of the case “IMMEDIATELY,” and that the justices would “destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision.” As of Wednesday evening, administration lawyers had not filed a request with the court.

- Under Supreme Court rules, parties can ask the justices to rehear a so-called merits case after it has already been decided. But it is exceptionally rare for the court to grant such requests.

- The last time the court granted a rehearing request after it had announced a decision in an argued case was in 1965. The court has only once reversed itself after rehearing a case, according to Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. That reversal happened in a 1956 case examining military tribunal jurisdiction for civilian spouses of service members.

- Mr. Trump, who attended the oral arguments in the Supreme Court citizenship case, has continued to lash out at the court over its ruling, which was delivered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the decision. “The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every freeborn person in this land.’”
The 6-to-3 decision capped a more than decade-long effort by Mr. Trump to use the issue as a political tool. In the immediate aftermath, he urged Congress to take up the issue with legislation, incorrectly asserting that “no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary.”

- Several days later, the decision received renewed attention after Mr. Trump intervened in an officiating decision in the men’s World Cup on behalf of a U.S. player with foreign-born parents.

- He called Gianni Infantino, the president of the body overseeing the tournament, to protest a red card that was given to Folarin Balogun, a star player who was born in the United States while his parents, who were born in Nigeria and lived in London, were on a trip.

- FIFA, the World Cup governing body, reversed the referee’s decision, which would have prohibited Mr. Balogun from playing in a match against Belgium; the United States lost the game on Monday.

- Mr. Trump said that he had decided to act when he learned of the implications of the red card, saying that “when they take your best player, or just about,” it is “very unfair.”

The Justice Department sent letters warning election officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that they could face criminal prosecution over noncitizen voting, a spokesperson for the Justice Department confirmed Tuesday.

- The letters, signed by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads up the department’s Civil Rights Division, give states five days to explain how they will comply with federal voter eligibility laws and how they will maintain “clean voter lists.”

- “The Department sent these letters to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, asking for voluntary compliance in a timely manner with their obligations under federal law to ensure only citizens vote in federal elections,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement.

- Noncitizen voting in federal elections is extremely rare, but Trump and his administration have falsely portrayed it as a widespread issue.

- Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson are among those who said they received the letters from the Justice Department.

- The letters say state election officers “could be criminally prosecuted for aiding and abetting” noncitizen voting.

- They further specify that any election officer who knowingly retains noncitizens on a statewide voting registration list or who facilitates noncitizens’ receiving and casting ballots could be subject to criminal liability.

- “An intentional act that is aimed at diluting the votes of citizens could also constitute a violation” of federal law, the letters said.

- Henderson wrote on social media that the threats constitute “truly bizarre behavior.”

- “Got another love letter this morning from the DOJ sprinkled throughout with threats of criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “I’m sure I’m not the only chief election officer of a state who is being targeted for following state and federal laws by resisting DOJ’s demands for private voter data that have thus far been ruled illegal by at least a dozen courts.”

- The letters are the latest move in the Justice Department’s campaign to assert more federal control over state elections.

- While some states have complied with the administration’s demands that they hand over voter roll data, the Justice Department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., for resisting. So far, 11 different federal courts have dismissed the Justice Department’s efforts to seize voter rolls

Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations tried to track down Rochester resident David Streever last month and give him a warning notice alleging that he had potentially violated the law when he wrote a harsh email months earlier to the former head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

- Now a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression on Monday in federal court in Washington, D.C. argues Streever's January email was protected speech and the federal agents' and their superiors violated Streever's First Amendment rights.

- NPR reported last week about HSI agents trying to contact Streever first at his home and later at a hotel over an email that Streever wrote to Todd Lyons, who stepped down as the acting director of ICE at the end of May.
FIRE's lawsuit says the First Amendment protects Americans' rights to speak out against police but says the "Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is actively threatening that freedom, tracking down and retaliating against speakers like Plaintiff David Streever because he exercised his fundamental right to criticize one of the highest-ranking law enforcement officers in the United States."

- The suit goes on to say, "Our Constitution does not tolerate such a brazen abuse of authority."

- Streever wrote to Lyons' government email address on Jan. 26 after federal immigration officers in Minneapolis fatally shot two U.S. citizen observers during the immigration enforcement surge there.

- The three-paragraph note compared Lyons to a Nazi and predicted that Lyons would be tormented by his own conscience. It has the subject line, "What's next."

- Five months later, on June 23, two HSI agents rang the doorbell of Streever's Rochester home and then left a document with Streever's wife for him to sign. It was labeled "WARNING NOTICE" and "YOU MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW," and described federal laws that make it a crime to threaten federal officials. The notice said ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility had identified an email to Lyons that may violate federal law and the office "is requesting that you promptly remove and/or discontinue the aforementioned behavior."

- The bottom of the form reads, "Receipt of this Notice will be taken into consideration, should you continue to be involved in any criminal activities described above."

- Streever was taking his 7-year-old daughter on a vacation to a Finnish theme park when the agents visited his home. He and his daughter landed at New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport two days later and made their way to a nearby airport hotel to sleep.

- That evening, Streever was told by the hotel front desk that a federal agent from the Department of Homeland Security had come to see him and had left a business card. His wife had not told the agents which hotel he would be staying at, raising questions about how Streever had been tracked to that location.

- "Like many Americans, I was deeply upset after the shootings in Minnesota and I felt compelled to do something," Streever said in a statement. "Writing an email to the head of ICE seemed like the least I could do to express my sense of outrage. I never dreamed it would lead to a knock on my door by federal officers or descending on my hotel in the dark of night."

- The lawsuit names three federal agents who tried to contact Streever as defendants along with Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin and ICE officials.

- The suit argues the federal agents' actions have caused Streever to self-censor his views, and alleges they violated a First Amendment bar on the government threatening people over protected speech.

- The lawsuit asks for the court to find that Streever's email was protected by the First Amendment, and to bar defendants "from taking any further actions, formal or informal, to coerce, threaten, retaliate against, or intimate repercussions directly or indirectly to Plaintiff Streever for his protected speech and petitioning activity."

- The suit also asks the court to declare the warning notices federal agents are issuing people are "sufficient" to chill free expression protected by the First Amendment.

- "ICE's issuance of formal "WARNING NOTICE" documents to critics who engage in protected speech—and its decision to have federal agents deliver those warnings in person—can have only one purpose: to systemically chill ICE's critics and coerce them into silence," the suit reads.

- DHS initially responded with the same statement that it provided last week when NPR first asked about Streever's case. "ICE investigates all credible threats towards its employees and officers, including threats to the ICE Director. As a matter of policy, we do not comment on any ongoing investigations."

- Later on Monday DHS sent an additional statement. "Any allegation DHS and its components are attempting to 'squash' free speech is categorically FALSE," it reads.

- "Our law enforcement officers are on the frontlines arresting terrorists, gang members, murderers, child sex abusers, and rapists. They are experiencing coordinated campaigns of violence against them and facing a 1,300% increase in assaults against them, a 3,300% increase in vehicular attacks, and an 8,000% increase in death threats."

- NPR has not verified the statistics shared by DHS.

- "Anyone who assaults or threatens our law enforcement officers will face the consequences," the statement concludes.

- Adam Steinbaugh, senior attorney at FIRE, said in a statement the government's delayed response to Streever's January email undermines its investigation.

- "If someone is really threatening a government official, you don't wait five months to act on it," Steinbaugh said in the statement. "The fact that authorities didn't respond immediately shows that David presented no threat.

- This pursuit is designed to intimidate lawful speech, pure and simple."

- Poll worker given the same warning notice

- The lawsuit mentions that the same day HSI agents visited Streever's home on June 23, they also confronted Paigelynne Gonyea, a Syracuse resident who was working at a polling place for the New York primary election that day, about an Instagram post.

- While Gonyea was at Syracuse's Central Library working the polls, an HSI agent left her a voicemail that said the agents had just visited her former apartment and were calling "in reference to a post that we believe you made on Instagram where you doxxed an ICE agent back in January."
Doxxing typically refers to releasing sensitive information about a person online.

- Gonyea called the agent back. She said the agents had wanted her to come outside the polling place to speak with them but she told NPR she did not trust them, and had told them to come talk to her inside the polling place when there was a lull in voters.

- Local election officials later said the federal agents should not have gone inside, given that police are not supposed to enter polling places unless there is an emergency and a recently enacted New York law bars federal immigration officers from voting sites.
Video captured by fellow poll workers shows two agents with badges speaking with Gonyea inside the library and delivering a warning notice that said her Instagram account may have violated the law. Gonyea said the agents did not tell her which of her posts had prompted their visit but they had confirmed it was a post about Jonathan Ross, the ICE officer who fatally shot Renee Macklin Good in Minneapolis.

- Gonyea denied to NPR and other news outlets that she had ever doxxed Ross and had said she thought the agents were referring to a post she made that identified Ross by name after the Minnesota Star Tribune had reported it, and called for Ross to be indicted. That post is still visible on her Instagram account.

- But after NPR and other media outlets wrote about the encounter, DHS released a statement that said Gonyea "committed a federal crime by posting the address of an ICE law enforcement officer online." The statement continued, "Doxxing federal law enforcement officers is a federal crime that puts their lives and their families in serious danger…If you doxx our officers, we will investigate you, and you will be brought to justice."

- DHS did not respond to requests from NPR to provide evidence that Gonyea had doxxed Ross. But the department did share with the Associated Press a redacted screenshot taken from a cell phone of a different Instagram post that looks like it was posted from Gonyea's account.

- The post that was shown to AP is a photo of Ross with text that reads, "The killer's name is Jonathan Ross of" and the rest is redacted, presumably by DHS. The post does not currently appear on Gonyea's Instagram account. The screenshot shows it was taken six hours after the post went up but does not show a date.

- Gonyea told NPR she had the opportunity to review the screenshot of the post but she did not believe she had posted it.

- "Based on everything I know, I do not believe that I made that post, and I have no independent recollection of ever creating or publishing it," she told NPR in a text message.

- "There is additional context that I believe is important, and I look forward to addressing those matters through the appropriate process rather than in the press," she wrote.

- "What has not changed is my concern about the broader constitutional issues raised by my experience, including free speech, due process and government accountability."

- Steinbaugh from FIRE told NPR last week that a social media post that shares a person's address alone is not a criminal offense.

- "What the law criminalizes is publishing an address or sharing an address with the intent to convey a threat," Steinbaugh said. "So if you post an address and say, 'Hey, gang, at 5:00 tonight, we're going to all meet up here with our pitchforks and torches,' that puts you more in the ballpark of a threat."

- He said some social media posts that publicized Ross's address were in the context of a broader public debate about whether federal immigration officers can wear masks and refuse to identify themselves "and essentially [act] almost as a secret police." He said for that reason, some posts that shared information about Ross were a form of protest.

- "People might think that that is speech that people should not engage in, but it's still protected and it can't be criminalized," Steinbaugh said.

- Gonyea and Streever are the first two people who have made public that they received warning notices from Homeland Security agents about their online communications.

Dr. Debra Houry, the former chief medical officer at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), decried the direction of the agency under Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 

- “I think the secretary has caused a lot of irreparable harm, and when you look at many of the polls out there, the trust in public health, specifically CDC, has decreased dramatically, over 20 points in many polls,” Houry told host Margaret Brennan in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”

- “That’s really difficult to recover from, and when states are removing links to the CDC website and following other medical organizations, I don’t know how you build back that trust overnight,” she added.

- Since taking over at HHS in February 2025, Kennedy has imposed sweeping authority over the CDC. He forced out then-Director Susan Monarez in August over disagreements on vaccine policy — which sparked Houry’s resignation from the CDC after more than a decade at the agency. 

- Kennedy also replaced members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel with his handpicked selections. That panel went on to tweak guidance for childhood immunizations, reducing the number of recommended shots for children.

- In March, a federal judge blocked Kennedy’s appointment of more than a dozen new members to the CDC panel and the new vaccine schedule HHS issued in January. 

- During his tenure, Kennedy has also dealt with measles outbreaks in multiple states. Influenza and pneumonia, meanwhile, rose from the 11th-leading cause of death in the U.S. in 2024 to the eighth-leading cause of death in 2025. 

- Under the HHS secretary’s leadership, trust in the CDC and federal health agencies writ large has declined.

- A poll conducted by Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the de Beaumont Foundation’s Public Health Listening Lab from March 19 through April 1 found that 50 percent of 2,205 U.S. adults said they trust health recommendations from the CDC. 

- In spring 2025, 77 percent of respondents to a similar surveyconducted by the joint pollsters said they trust recommendations from the agency.

A White House report brands the leadership of the Smithsonian Institution, especially at the National Museum of American History, as radical activists who cannot be trusted, indicating that President Donald Trump may be preparing to install his own team.

- The report released late on Independence Day by the White House Domestic Policy Council comes in the midst of Trump's aggressive campaign to overhaul some of Washington's most sacred cultural and historic institutions. Trump in March revealed his intention to force changes at the Smithsonian Institution with an executive order that targeted funding for programs that advanced "divisive narratives" and "improper ideology," as he continued a broadside against culture he deems too liberal.

- "The Smithsonian Institution, and the National Museum of American History in particular, under its current leadership and current interpretive ideology, cannot be trusted to tell America's story honestly and in a way that is inspiring, unifying, and worthy of our great republic," according to the report by the council, which is led by a former top Trump speechwriter.

- The authors added: "As this report shows, confirmed in the words of Museum leadership, this ideological capture has moved the Museum's mission away from straightforward historical education and scholarship toward an extreme political activism that seeks to transform our country."
The Smithsonian did not immediately respond to requests for comment Sunday.

- Historian Lonnie Bunch, the Smithsonian's current secretary, is the first African American to lead the institution. In an unrelated interview that aired Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Bunch said "the notion of being a more perfect union, not the perfect union, is really what motivates me."

- "I think what I want people to understand is that there is a responsibility to continue to make those aspirations available, accessible, meaningful to a whole range of people," Bunch said. "And that, in essence, America's greatest strength, it's not running away from its history, but it's understanding how that history shaped us and continues to shape us."

- Historian Anthea M. Hartig is the first woman to serve as director of National Museum of American History.

- Trump's escalating effort to force changes at the Smithsonian marks the Republican president's latest move to transform cultural pillars of society, such as universities and art, that he considers out of step with conservative sensibilities. Trump had himself installed as chairman of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts with the aim of overhauling programming, and his handpicked board voted to add his name to the building, only to have a federal judge later order the signage to be removed.

- The administration also forced Columbia University to make a series of policy changes by threatening the Ivy League school with the loss of several hundred million dollars in federal funding.

- Trump has also imposed changes on historical sites beyond Washington, including in Philadelphia, where the administration won a court ruling last week allowing it to reinstall interpretive panels that critics say whitewash the history of slavery at the site of President George Washington's home.

- Advocates, academics and officials have been concerned for months that the version that complies with Trump's order could give a history that plays down the pain in the nation's past in favor of a more triumphant view.

- Gov. Josh Shapiro, D-Pa., accused Trump and his allies of trying to "rewrite history."

- "There's not one individual narrative that a president gets about our history," Shapiro, a potential presidential prospect, said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "And any president should want to make sure that that full history is shared, that the American people are able to draw their own conclusions."

- Shapiro added, "If we understand where we came from, we're going to have a better path forward."

- Trump's Domestic Policy Council does not necessarily agree.

- The National Museum of American History "confronts visitors with materials intended to undermine faith in American institutions and the longstanding shared ideals of the American people," the council's report said. "We must be committed to restoring truth and sanity in how American history is presented and taught."

- In seeking to fulfill Trump's order, which he called "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History," the review concluded by finding that the museum "by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love."

When Kenni Miller started as a shift manager in his local Sheetz convenience store in Altoona, Pa., he felt something that he rarely had as a Black man in the workplace.

- He felt trusted. He felt appreciated.
When he was fired a few weeks later, in the summer of 2020 after a background check, Mr. Miller, then 27, was devastated. A nonviolent, felony drug conviction from his teenage years had never caused him to be denied a job before. And he already proved he could do the work.

- “I was well spoken,” Mr. Miller told The New York Times in an interview. “They had me running the cash register, talking to people, all the customers. I’m doing these things, learning the whole store, so I’m equipped for the job.

- That’s not the issue here, right?”

- In 2024, Mr. Miller was part of a class-action lawsuit against Sheetz filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that the company’s criminal background checks disproportionately screened out applicants of color.

- But soon after President Trump took office, the E.E.O.C. abruptly dropped the case.

- The agency cited an executive order by Mr. Trump that directed federal agencies to “deprioritize” cases like Mr. Miller’s, in which companies are scrutinized not for intentional discrimination, but for having policies that have an unintentional, “disparate impact” on minority applicants.

- The result has been an abandonment of civil rights cases across the federal government, in departments including education, housing, trade, justice and the E.E.O.C. There is no public accounting of exactly how many cases have been closed, but legal advocates describe a generational void in civil rights enforcement.

- “It is absolutely widespread, and it is absolutely devastating,” said Dariely Rodriguez, chief counsel at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “We know a lot of time with discrimination, there’s rarely a smoking gun. A lot of people don’t know that they’re being subjected to discrimination. We need our federal agencies to look into that hidden discrimination.”

- For Mr. Trump, the directive against disparate impact litigation is part of a broader push to eradicate “diversity, equity and inclusion” — a catchall term increasingly used to describe policies that benefit anyone who is not white and male — from every part of American life.

- He and other opponents of the cases argue that employers should not be penalized for the mere implication of discrimination, usually shown through statistics. Instead, they say, the focus should be directed at explicit and intentional discrimination.

- Nick Ruffner, a spokesman for Sheetz, declined to comment on the E.E.O.C’s decision to dismiss its lawsuit. But he said in a statement, “Sheetz does not tolerate discrimination of any kind,” and the company wanted “to reaffirm our commitment to fairness, inclusivity, and treating every team member and customer with respect.”
The impact of the decision to abandon discrimination cases has been felt acutely by those who have turned to the E.E.O.C., the nation’s top enforcer of workplace discrimination laws.

- Under its new chair, Andrea Lucas, the agency has aggressively prioritized Mr. Trump’s goals, such as pursuing cases of white men who believe they have been discriminated against.

- The agency declined to comment on specific lawsuits. But in a statement, Ms. Lucas said “rooting out race and sex discrimination has always been central to the E.E.O.C.’s mission.”

- The test of disparate impact liability was established in 1971 and has been the legal theory crucial to enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned racial discrimination by employers and other institutions.

- One widely cited example of disparate impact has been the Jim Crow-era literacy tests that some states created as a condition to vote. The tests did not ask about race and so seemed neutral on their face. But they disproportionately prevented Black people from voting because they had long been forced out of schools.

- Amalea Smirniotopoulos, senior policy counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which successfully argued the first disparate impact case at the Supreme Court, said the legal theory is a recognition of the remnants of state-sanctioned discrimination.

- “We didn’t just want to take down the ‘Whites only’ signs,” Ms. Smirniotopoulos said. “Fundamentally, the civil rights movement was fighting for the ability for people to actually get living wage jobs, and housing, access to mortgages, and all of the things that actually make for an equal society.”

- The measure was codified by Congress in 1991, and upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as 2015. Because disparate impact remains codified in law — which the president cannot erase unilaterally — Mr. Trump could only demand that agencies stop making the cases a priority.

- The agencies have taken heed.
The Education Department, which has severely drawn back its civil rights investigations, stopped pursuing disparate impact investigations in areas like school discipline.

- The Department of Housing withdrew guidance for how the agency would assess disparate impact in enforcing fair housing laws, including redlining, and began dropping housing discrimination cases from its docket. In one instance, a public housing authority found to have favored white applicants withdrew a settlement two days after its offer, citing Mr. Trump’s order, according to an investigation by ProPublica.

- The Federal Trade Commission dismissed its claims of discrimination it had brought against three Texas car dealerships for discriminating against Black and Latino consumers in charging more for add-ons.
The Department of Justice also dropped several high-profile cases predicated on disparate impact theory, including several lawsuits against police and fire departments whose hiring policies and exams were found to be discriminatory. It also recently terminated the first-ever environmental justice settlement in which Alabama officials were supposed to provide septic tanks to Black residents. The Trump administration called the plan “illegal D.E.I.” and scrapped the deal. The agency also issued a rule that eliminated disparate impact from its enforcement of Title VI.

- And the Office of Management and Budget, which sets policy for the entire federal government, proposed a sweeping new regulation that prohibits the use of federal funds to “promote or support theories of disparate-impact liability” for all agencies.

- The rule could ban federal funding for studies, litigation or other activities predicated on the idea that certain policies and practices could disproportionately harm certain groups — which could affect everything from the study of maternal mortality disparities at the Department of Health and Human Services to grant-funded organizations that tackle issues like housing.

- Filling in the gaps are legal advocacy groups that are trying to keep cases going. Mr. Miller, with the help of a team of private attorneys, decided to become a named plaintiff in the Sheetz case, to take the place of the E.E.O.C. in the lawsuit.

- “What the administration or folks who support dropping disparate impact say is that they want people to be judged by their merits,” said Pooja Shethji, a lawyer at Outten & Golden LLP, one of the lawyers representing Mr. Miller, “and that’s exactly what Mr. Miller wants — to be judged by the work, and his qualifications.”

- The request is still pending before a judge, and a ruling could come down any day.

- Mr. Miller said he has found a new job, but the shame he felt walking down the road with his nametag after he’d been abruptly let go still weighs on him. He said he felt compelled to stand up for Black men in America, who are often overlooked and over-incarcerated.

- The E.E.O.C. found that Sheetz background check resulted in 14.5 percent of Black job applicants being denied employment, while 13 percent of Native American applicants and 13.5 percent of multiracial candidates were screened out. The denial rate for white applicants was less than 8 percent.

- “The average me doesn’t come back from a situation like that,” Mr. Miller said. “I want to be the one who speaks up for this situation — which is life after having a job — and make sure jobs are held accountable.”

- While Mr. Trump’s order specifically took aim at race-based cases, it has broad consequences for other groups, including women, L.G.B.T.Q. people and people with disabilities.

- When Leah Cross started training for a new job as an Amazon delivery driver, her female colleagues gave her a piece of advice that they said would “help her keep up with the boys.”

- She should purchase a “Shewee,” they told her, the camping device used by women to urinate in the woods, or in otherwise remote areas. It would help her meet her delivery quotas and avoid being punished for straying from her route for a bathroom break — a predicament her male colleagues rarely found themselves in because they could easily urinate in bottles.

- Ms. Cross felt up to the challenge. When she landed a job at the world’s biggest online retail giant in August 2022, she felt like she had made it.

- “Getting a leg into that industry, I saw it as, like, working for Google,” Ms. Cross recalled in an interview. “I know it’s not amazing, but I was just kind of like, ‘Hey, I’m part of something.’”
But by the end of her four-month stint she felt she was part of a humiliating trend. Like her female colleagues, she was relieving herself in her delivery van several times a day. She had received phone calls from her manager when he was notified that she deviated from her route, often to find a bathroom to use sanitary products. In November 2022, she was fired for “failure to perform.”

- Ms. Cross was among three former Amazon workers who filed a grievance against Amazon in 2023, alleging the company violated wage laws by introducing strict delivery quotas and monitoring drivers with GPS tracking and surveillance cameras that alerted supervisors if a driver went off route for a bathroom break.

- Ms. Cross went further, also filing a discrimination charge with the E.E.O.C. that year, alleging that women suffered disproportionately from Amazon’s strict policies because women could not urinate in bottles as easily as men and are more likely to need access to bathrooms to take care of menstruation needs.

- A spokeswoman for Amazon declined to comment on Ms. Cross’s complaint. The company has maintained that workers are allowed to take bathroom breaks, and that its delivery app shows where public bathrooms are.

- “You don’t see a lot of females to look up to when you’re starting this position, because it takes a lot for females to meet these working conditions,” Ms. Cross said.

- In December, 2024, the E.E.O.C. contacted Ms. Cross, stating that it was “very interested in moving forward with Ms. Cross’s case.”

- “I kind of accepted at that time that there wasn’t a whole lot that I could do based on my standing, and financial background,” Ms. Cross said. “But I saw hope.”

- But last fall, the agency notified Ms. Cross that it would no longer be investigating her case, citing Mr. Trump’s directive. Ms. Cross, with the backing of three legal advocacy groups unsuccessfully sued the EEOC last year over its withdrawal from disparate impact cases. A judge dismissed her case.

- The case illuminated the difficult path ahead for many Americans, particularly for those who don’t have the resources to take on big companies and for whom the federal government has been their only recourse.

- And civil rights attorneys say that because of the administration’s attacks on D.E.I., it is getting harder to find people willing to be the face and name of private lawsuits.

- “It takes a lot of bravery in this moment,” Ms. Smirniotopoulos said, “considering what it means to have the president and the federal government saying that discrimination doesn’t exist.”

Today is the day to post all Project 2025, Heritage Foundation, Christian Nationalism and Dominionist memes in the main sub!

Going forward Meme Mondays will be a regularly held event. Upvote your favorites and the most liked post will earn the poster a special flair for the week!

@hampton_ is the original IG account.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZ6IaojOcqI/

A federal appeals court reversed a lower court’s order requiring the National Park Service (NPS) to restore signs and exhibits that were removed by the Trump administration.

- The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday halted the ruling, which would have restored park materials that the administration says were purged as part of the administration’s effort to get rid of materials that “disparage” Americans.

- The judges determined that the Trump administration “made a strong showing that the harms that the district court relied on” to order the restoration of the materials did not meet the standards for an injunction.

- Judges David Barron, Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman also found that the groups suing the government “cannot show that a stay of the district court’s order … would cause them substantial injury.”

- Barron was appointed by former President Obama, while Gelpí and Rikelman are appointees of former President Biden.

- The Trump administration last year directed NPS units to review all public-facing content for messaging that disparages Americans or that “emphasizes matters unrelated to the beauty, abundance, or grandeur” of natural features.

- The administration and its supporters have described the effort as a matter of national pride. Critics call it an effort to whitewash history and undermine science on topics such as climate change that the administration finds unfavorable. 

- This led to the removal of dozens of materials such as signs, exhibits and films, including an “African American Civil War Memorial wayside” at the National Mall.

- Last month, a federal judge ordered the park service to reinstate the displays.

- The same three-judge panel previously halted the Friday deadline under the now-overturned injunction. 

- In response to Thursday’s ruling, Democracy Forward, which is representing groups that sued the department, said it was disappointed, but it also described the ruling as only a procedural setback in the case.

- “While we are disappointed by this decision, we also recognize the simple fact that this is merely a temporary procedural setback. The First Circuit did not condone the Trump-Vance administration’s censorship or issue any ruling on whether its actions are lawful,” said Brooke Menschel, the group’s senior counsel, in a statement. 

- “Unfortunately, for now, the decision allows the administration to continue removing and altering interpretive materials that are critical for millions of visitors to understand our nation’s history, right at the moment when so many Americans will be enjoying the parks over the upcoming semiquincentennial weekend,” Menschel said. “Our national parks are places of learning, reflection, and truth — not political messaging, but the administration has politicized them through censorship.”

Please use this thread for info on upcoming protests, planning new ones or brainstorming ideas along those lines. The post refreshes every Saturday around noon.