Trump’s Justice Department launches sweeping cuts targeting Jan. 6 prosecutors, FBI agents

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) headquarters is seen in Washington on Dec. 7, 2024. (AP file photo)
Short Url
Updated 01 February 2025
Follow

Trump’s Justice Department launches sweeping cuts targeting Jan. 6 prosecutors, FBI agents

  • Department reviews all who worked on Jan. 6 cases
  • FBI officials in major cities are ordered to quit
  • FBI agents group says hundreds could be affected

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump’s administration launched a sweeping round of cuts at the Justice Department on Friday that appeared to focus on FBI agents and others who worked on cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack by his supporters on the US Capitol.
The shakeup, detailed in two memos seen by Reuters and by three sources familiar with the matter, is the Trump administration’s latest move to remake the US criminal justice system since he returned to the presidency last week. A group representing FBI agents issued a rare public warning of the potential for hundreds of firings at the nation’s top law enforcement agency.

The new administration already has fired more than a dozen prosecutors who pursued criminal charges against Trump in two cases brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith that have been dismissed. It also has paused all civil rights and environmental litigation and ordered criminal investigations of state and local officials who interfere with his hard-line immigration initiatives.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove on Thursday told the top federal prosecutors in each state to compile a list of all prosecutors and FBI agents who worked on the investigation of the Capitol riot, which was the largest Justice Department probe in modern US history, two sources briefed on the matter said.
The sources spoke on condition of anonymity.
The FBI was ordered to provide by Tuesday a list of all employees who worked on a 2024 criminal case brought by the Justice Department against leaders of the Hamas militant group, according to a memo seen by Reuters. A source briefed on the matter also said the FBI was asked to provide a list of employees who worked on the two Trump cases brought by Smith.
That memo ordered eight FBI officials to resign or be fired, saying that their participation in the Jan. 6 cases represented part of what Trump has called the “weaponization” of government.
In a statement on Friday, the FBI Agents Association, a membership group of more than 14,000 active and former FBI agents, called the moves “outrageous.”
“Dismissing potentially hundreds of agents would severely weaken the bureau’s ability to protect the country from national security and criminal threats and will ultimately risk setting up the bureau and its new leadership for failure,” the association added.
The staff cuts are hitting career FBI officials and prosecutors in nonpartisan roles who typically remain in their posts from administration to administration. The bureau has a history of political independence and is responsible for highly sensitive investigations involving counterterrorism, public corruption and cybersecurity.
In his first day back in the White House on Jan. 20, Trump granted clemency to all of the nearly 1,600 people charged with storming the Capitol in a failed bid to block Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden.
Ed Martin, the Trump-appointed top federal prosecutor in Washington, has since launched an inquiry into the use of a felony obstruction charge in prosecutions of people accused of taking part in the Jan. 6 attack.

Major cities targetted
At least five top FBI officials in major US cities — Miami, Philadelphia, Washington, New Orleans and Las Vegas — were ordered to resign or be fired, one of the sources said. Another source said that a sixth senior FBI official, in Los Angeles, was given a similar order.
Another five top officials in FBI headquarters were ordered to leave or face termination earlier in the week, another source told Reuters.
FBI and Justice Department officials declined to comment on the various moves.
“What we are seeing is a raw, unfiltered exercise of presidential authority to purge the government of anyone who put the Constitution first, instead of adherence or loyalty to Donald Trump,” said Bradley Moss, an attorney who represents federal employees.
“At a time when we are facing a multitude of threats to the homeland ... it is deeply alarming that the Trump administration appears to be purging dozens of the most experienced agents who are our nation’s first line of defense,” Democratic US Senator Mark Warner said in a statement. Kash Patel, Trump’s nominee to lead the FBI, told a US Senate panel on Thursday during his confirmation hearing that he would protect the bureau’s 37,000 employees against “political retribution” if he were confirmed. The same day, the Justice Department said it was investigating the release by an upstate New York sheriff’s office of an immigrant living in the US illegally. This appears to be its first use of a new policy to criminally investigate state and local officials who do not comply with Trump’s directives.
Bove, in a separate Friday memo seen by Reuters, ordered the firings of all prosecutors who had been hired on a probationary basis to work on Jan. 6-related cases, noting that Trump characterized their work as “a grave national injustice.”
About 20 people were fired as a result of that order, according to a source familiar with the move.
Bove also accused the Biden administration of rushing to convert the status of probationary prosecutors to permanent status after Trump won the election in a bid to save their jobs.


13 hurt when car plows into crowd before Spanish soccer match

Updated 5 sec ago
Follow

13 hurt when car plows into crowd before Spanish soccer match

BARCELONA: At least 13 people were hurt when a driver lost control and plowed into a crowd gathered outside a football match between RCD Espanyol and city rivals FC Barcelona, police said on Thursday.
Police said people were hurt when the vehicle rammed into the crowd outside RCD Españyol soccer stadium in Barcelona at the start of the game.
Police added in a statement on social media site X that the incident did not present any danger to the crowd inside the stadium.
Salvador Illa, the Catalan regional president, said on Thursday all the injuries were “minor” and ruled out any deliberate attack.
The driver has been arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving and causing injury.


New Royal Navy chief under renewed scrutiny over Afghanistan war crimes evidence

Updated 48 min 26 sec ago
Follow

New Royal Navy chief under renewed scrutiny over Afghanistan war crimes evidence

  • Gen. Gwyn Jenkins previously accused of failing to report evidence of war crimes committed by British forces
  • It is also alleged he oversaw rejection of hundreds of resettlement applications from Afghans who served alongside British troops against the Taliban

LONDON: The man chosen as the new head of the UK’s Royal Navy was previously accused of failing to report evidence of war crimes allegedly committed by British forces in Afghanistan.

Gen. Sir Gwyn Jenkins, who was appointed on Thursday, also faced allegations this week that he oversaw the rejection of hundreds of resettlement applications from former Afghan special forces members who served alongside British troops against the Taliban, The Guardian newspaper reported.

Jenkins replaces Adm. Ben Key, who stepped down last week over allegations of misconduct.

The new navy chief previously led UK Special Forces in Afghanistan during the war against the Taliban. That conflict is under renewed scrutiny in Britain following recent fresh allegations of war crimes involving members of Britain’s elite Special Air Service and Special Boat Service.

In 2023, it emerged that Jenkins had been warned in writing in 2011 that SAS troops had claimed to have executed handcuffed detainees in Afghanistan. Rather than refer this evidence to the Royal Military Police, the BBC reported at the time, Jenkins placed the documents in a safe. However, The Telegraph newspaper reported that Jenkins did pass the evidence up the chain of command at the time.

This week, an investigation by the BBC current affairs program “Panorama” revealed that Jenkins personally appointed an officer under his command to assess the Afghan resettlement applications. Thousands of former elite Afghan soldiers were rejected, despite credible evidence of their service alongside British counterparts.

The UK’s Ministry of Defence said it was “not appropriate … to comment on allegations which may be within the scope of the statutory inquiry,” referring to a public inquiry underway in the UK to investigate the war crimes allegations.

There was “no evidence” that Afghan resettlement applications were rejected to prevent the former soldiers from giving evidence to the war crimes inquiry, it added.

Defence Secretary John Healey on Thursday described Jenkins as a “proven leader with a distinguished career in both the military and at the core of government.”

He added: “I know he will deliver in this pivotal role, making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.”

Sarah Atherton, a former Tory MP who sat on the Defence Select Committee, told The Telegraph: “Military personnel, especially senior leaders, are held to high ethical and behavior standards.

“If somebody is facing an allegation … I know it’s alleged, but it’s just very strange to appoint someone who is in this position, given the circumstances. That is bizarre.”

Jenkins said after his appointment that he wanted to “accelerate” the Royal Navy’s return to a “war fighting force that is ready for conflict.”


US Supreme Court grapples with Trump bid to restrict birthright citizenship

Updated 46 min 2 sec ago
Follow

US Supreme Court grapples with Trump bid to restrict birthright citizenship

  • Trump order targeted children of certain immigrants
  • Three judges issued orders blocking policy nationwide

WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court wrestled on Thursday over Donald Trump’s attempt to broadly enforce his executive order to restrict birthright citizenship, a move that would affect thousands of babies born each year as the Republican president seeks a major shift in how the US Constitution has long been understood. The court’s conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 majority, seemed willing to limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions, as federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts did to block Trump’s directive. None of the justices, however, signaled an endorsement of Trump’s order and some of the liberals said it violates the Constitution and the court’s own precedents.
The justices heard more than two hours of arguments in the administration’s emergency request to scale back the injunctions blocking Trump’s directive, which is a key part of his hard-line approach toward immigration. Three judges found that Trump’s order likely violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment citizenship language. Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a “green card” holder.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she believes Trump’s order violates multiple Supreme Court precedents concerning citizenship. Sotomayor said the court should weigh the order’s legality “if we are worried about those thousands of children who are going to be born without citizenship papers that could render them stateless” and leave them ineligible for government benefits.
More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump’s order takes effect, according to the plaintiffs who challenged the directive, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants.
The case is unusual in that the administration has used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue universal injunctions, and has asked the justices to rule that way and enforce Trump’s directive even without weighing its legal merits. Sauer focused on this issue, calling the increasing use by judges of universal injunctions a “pathology.”
In potentially restricting the ability of lower courts to issue universal injunctions in certain instances, the conservative justices raised the idea of requiring plaintiffs to funnel claims seeking broader relief into class-action lawsuits, which are filed on behalf of a group of people who suffer similar legal injuries.
Some of the conservatives also signaled that at least for the states that sued, relief might properly extend beyond their borders, as a universal injunction does.
Complicating matters, some justices — conservatives and liberals alike — also seemed reticent to rule without further delving into the underlying legal merits of Trump’s directive. It remained uncertain whether the court would order further briefing, which would further delay resolution of the case.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked Kelsi Corkran, a lawyer for some of the plaintiffs, “Should we decide or make up our minds on the underlying birthright citizenship question without briefing and argument and deliberation?”
Corkran said the justices should take up the case specifically on the merits of Trump’s order, adding, “The government is asking the court to allow it to ignore this court’s precedents ... and to upend 100 years of executive branch practice.”
The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s directive violated the 14th Amendment, which long has been understood to confer citizenship on almost anyone born on US soil. It was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War that ended slavery in the United States.
The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The administration contends that this citizenship language does not extend to immigrants in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas.

‘All kinds of abuses’
Without a universal injunction blocking Trump’s order, it could be years before the Supreme Court finally decides its constitutionality, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said.
“There are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions,” Kagan told Sauer. “But I think that the question that this case presents is that if one thinks that it’s quite clear that the (executive order) is illegal, how does one get to that result in what time frame, on your set of rules without the possibility of a nationwide injunction?“
Sauer noted that after the dispute percolates in lower courts, the Supreme Court can ultimately pronounce on the legal merits of the policy, prompting conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett to express skepticism.
“Are you really going to answer Justice Kagan by saying there’s no way to do this expeditiously?” Barrett said.
Sotomayor compared Trump’s directive to a hypothetical action by a president taking away guns from every American who owns one despite the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Sauer said that since Trump returned to the presidency, federal judges have issued 40 universal injunctions against his administration’s policies.
“This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations,” Sauer said.

Variations by state
The administration is seeking to narrow the injunctions to apply only to the individual plaintiffs and the 22 states, if the justices find the states have the required legal standing to sue. That could allow the policy to take effect in the 28 states that did not sue, aside from any plaintiffs living in those states.
Jeremy Feigenbaum, the lawyer arguing for the states, said states face high and costly hurdles in managing difficulties in distributing government benefits if the order takes effect and citizenship is applied in a patchwork fashion, adding that class-action cases are “not available for state litigation.”
Feigenbaum suggested that the justices could limit universal injunctions to a narrow set of cases, including in this case where alternatives to such broad relief “are not practically or legally workable.” Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, a critic of univeral injunctions, expressed some agreement with Feigenbaum on that point.
Feigenbaum said the legal issue surrounding Trump’s executive order was resolved by the Supreme Court 127 years ago.
An 1898 Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. The administration has argued that the court’s ruling in that case was narrower, applying only to children whose parents had a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.”
The 14th Amendment overrode an infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision called Dred Scott v. Sandford that had denied citizenship to enslaved and free Black people and helped fuel the Civil War.
“This order reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not illegal aliens or temporary visitors,” Sauer told the justices of Trump’s directive.
The case is the first involving a Trump policy to be argued at the top US judicial body since he returned to office, though the justices have acted on an emergency basis in several other challenges to his policies. Three of the justices were appointed by Trump during his first term as president.

 


Trump says urged Apple to manufacture in US not India

Updated 15 May 2025
Follow

Trump says urged Apple to manufacture in US not India

DOHA: US President Donald Trump said on Thursday he urged Apple to manufacture its products in the US instead of India, where the US tech giant has said it would be shifting production after US tariffs on China.

“I had a little problem with Tim Cook,” Trump said, referring to Apple’s CEO, during a multi-day tour of the Gulf. 

“I said, Tim, we treated you really good. We put up with all the plants that you built in China for years now.”

The president told Cook: “We’re not interested in you building in India ... we want you to build here and they’re going to be upping their production in the United States.”

Apple announced in February it would invest more than $500 billion in the US over the next four years and promised to hire 20,000 people in the country.

“Apple’s already in for 500 billion, but they’re going to be upping their production, so it’ll be great,” Trump said in Qatar.

On Monday, the US and China announced an agreement to suspend tit-for-tat tariffs for 90 days, de-escalating a trade war that has spooked financial markets and raised fears of a global economic downturn.

Before the agreement between Beijing and Washington, Cook said Apple was “not able to estimate the impact of tariffs precisely.”

When presenting the tech company’s firstquarter profits in early May, Cook said he expected “a majority of iPhones sold in the US will have India as their country of origin”.

He warned of the uncertain impact of the 145 percent US tariffs on products from China — the company’s long-time manufacturing hub — despite a temporary reprieve for high-end tech goods such as smartphones and computers.

Although completed smartphones are exempted from Trump’s tariffs for now, not all components that go into Apple devices are spared.


Man is charged in fires targeting properties linked to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer

Updated 15 May 2025
Follow

Man is charged in fires targeting properties linked to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer

  • Metropolitan Police said Roman Lavrynovych was charged with arson with intent to endanger life
  • Lavrynovych, a Ukrainian national, is due to appear in court on Friday

LONDON: A 21-year-old man was charged Thursday with three counts of arson for fires that targeted two properties and a car linked to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

The Metropolitan Police force said Roman Lavrynovych, who was arrested Tuesday, was charged with arson with intent to endanger life.

The charges are linked to three incidents over the past week — a car fire on May 8, a fire Monday at Starmer’s private home that damaged the door of the house, and a fire Sunday outside a north London house converted into apartments connected to the UK leader. No injuries were reported from any of the fires.

Lavrynovych, a Ukrainian national, is due to appear in court on Friday. After he was arrested, Lavrynovych has remained in custody after warrants of further detention were obtained, the police said in a statement.

Starmer moved with his family to the prime minister’s official Downing Street residence after taking office in July.

The investigation was led by counterterrorism detectives as it involves the prime minister. Authorities are also probing whether there was state involvement as well as looking at other potential motivations.

Earlier this week, Starmer said the recent arson attacks represented “an attack on all of us, on democracy and the values that we stand for.”

The attacks were condemned by leaders across the House of Commons, including by the Conservative Party’s Kemi Badenoch, who described them as “completely unacceptable.”

Starmer’s former house has attracted protesters in the past. Last year, three pro-Palestinian activists were arrested and charged with public order offenses after unfurling a banner covered in red handprints outside the building.