Source: Silicon Bay Partners’ with assistance from GhatGPT
Photo: Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States)

For generations, the Supreme Court of the United States was viewed by many Americans as the nation’s final guardian of fairness, constitutional balance, and civil rights. Today, however, a growing number of citizens see something quite different: a court increasingly shaped by ideology, political favoritism, and ethical controversy. To its critics, it is becoming less a symbol of justice and more a symbol of power unchecked.

Nothing crystallized that perception more than the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. For nearly fifty years, Roe had recognized a constitutional right to abortion, allowing women—not politicians—to make deeply personal medical decisions. When the Court reversed that precedent in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the consequences were immediate and devastating for many women across America. States rushed to impose strict abortion bans,

including in cases involving rape, incest, and severe medical complications. Women facing dangerous pregnancies suddenly found themselves navigating fear, uncertainty, and legal barriers while doctors worried about criminal liability for providing care.

For many Americans, the issue was never simply political. It was personal. Women who believed they had constitutional protection over their own bodies watched that protection disappear overnight because six justices decided precedent no longer mattered. Critics argue the ruling exposed a court willing to abandon decades of established law to satisfy a long-standing political agenda.

Justice Clarence Thomas became a focal point of another controversy that further damaged public trust in the Court. Reports revealed that Thomas had accepted lavish gifts and luxury travel from wealthy billionaire benefactors over many years, including access to private jets, vacations, and financial favors that critics say created the appearance of profound ethical compromise. Particularly troubling to many observers was the revelation involving a luxury recreational vehicle tied to financial assistance from a wealthy associate. While ordinary Americans struggle to pay mortgages, medical bills, and student debt, a Supreme Court justice appeared to be living under a separate set of rules.

The controversy deepened because Supreme Court justices are not bound by the same enforceable ethics standards that apply to many lower federal judges. Critics argue the Court essentially polices itself, creating an environment where accountability is minimal and public confidence continues to erode.

Thomas’ confirmation hearings decades earlier left scars on the national conscience. Anita Hill’s testimony alleging sexual harassment became one of the most explosive moments in modern American political history. Hill testified before an all-male Senate Judiciary Committee that Thomas had sexually harassed her while supervising her at the Department of Education and the EEOC. Rather than being treated with dignity, many Americans believed Hill was subjected to ridicule, hostility, and character attacks. The hearings became a defining moment for women who saw how difficult it could be to come forward against powerful men. Thomas was confirmed, but the bitterness surrounding those hearings never fully disappeared.

The Court’s critics also point to a pattern of decisions that appear unusually favorable to Donald Trump. Whether involving presidential immunity, election-related disputes, or delaying cases tied to Trump’s legal troubles, opponents argue the Court often appears cautious when confronting Trump in ways it never was with others. Even when rulings stop short of fully endorsing him, critics contend the Court repeatedly grants Trump extraordinary legal and political breathing room.

That perception is amplified by the fact that three of the Court’s current justices were appointed by Trump himself. To many Americans, the Court no longer appears independent from politics but deeply entangled in it. Every controversial ruling feeds suspicion that ideology now outweighs impartial constitutional interpretation.

Supporters of the Court insist the justices are simply applying the Constitution as they see fit, regardless of public opinion. But institutions ultimately survive on public trust, not just legal authority. When millions of Americans believe the nation’s highest court is operating with political motives, ethical blind spots, and selective principles, the legitimacy of that institution begins to crack.

The Supreme Court was once described as the branch least influenced by politics because its members serve for life and are insulated from elections. Ironically, that insulation may now be contributing to the growing anger surrounding it. Lifetime appointments without meaningful accountability can create the perception that justices answer to no one—not voters, not ethics investigators, not even the consequences of their own decisions.

A court that removes rights long considered settled, faces repeated ethical scandals, and appears increasingly aligned with partisan power invites a puzzling question from the American public: if this is justice, why does it feel so political?

For many Americans, the answer is becoming painfully clear. The Court may still be called “Supreme,” but in the eyes of its critics, it no longer feels above politics, above influence, or above reproach.

And, of course we must never forget Senator Mitch McConnell’s (R) successful effort to stall Merrick Garland’s appointment to the court until the Republic party returned to the majority.

Source: MSN, Sarah Raza
Photo: Canadian Citizenship Eager Americans © Mark Vancleave

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — Millions more Americans might qualify for dual Canadian citizenship under a recent change to Canada’s requirements that has led to a surge in applications from its southern neighbor.

For people like Zack Loud of Farmington, Minnesota, it was a surprise to learn that under a new law, Canada already considered him and his siblings citizens because their grandmother is Canadian.

“My wife and I were already talking about potentially looking at jobs outside the country, but citizenship pushed Canada way up on our list,” he said.

Since the new law took effect Dec. 15, immigration lawyers in the United States and Canada say they have been overwhelmed by clients seeking help submitting proof of citizenship applications. Driven by politics, family heritage, job opportunities and other factors, thousands of Americans are exploring whether the easier process makes now the right time to gain dual citizenship.

Nicholas Berning, an immigration attorney at Boundary Bay Law in Bellingham, Washington, said his practice is “pretty much flooded with this.”

“We’ve kind of shifted a lot of other work away in order to push these cases through,” he said.

Immigration attorney Amandeep Hayer said his Vancouver, British Columbia-area practice went from about 200 citizenship cases a year to more than 20 consultations per day.

Canada has been changing its citizenship laws for decades, whether to update historic interpretations of law or to address discrimination issues.

Previously, Canadian citizenship by descent could only be passed down to one generation, from a parent to a child. But the new law opened up citizenship to anyone born before that date who could prove they have a direct Canadian ancestor — a grandparent, great-grandparent or even more distant ancestor.

Those born on or after Dec. 15 need to show that their Canadian parent lived in Canada for 1,095 days.

Under the new law, descendants of Canadians are already considered citizens but must provide proof to obtain a certificate of citizenship. Hayer estimated that there are millions of Americans who are Canadian descendants.

“You are Canadian, and you’re considered to be one your whole life,” said Hayer, who advocated for the new law in parliament. “That’s really what you’re applying for, the recognition of a right you already have vested.”

“The best way I can put it is like, if a baby’s born tomorrow in Canada, the baby’s Canadian even though they don’t have the birth certificate,” he said.

Americans interested in dual citizenship

American applicants have different motivations, but many say President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and other topics have led them to seek dual citizenship.

Michelle Cunha, of Bedford, Massachusetts, said she decided to move to Canada after reflecting on decades of political activism and deciding she had “nothing left to give.”

“I put in my best effort for 30 years. I have done everything that I possibly can to make the United States what it promises the world to be, a place of freedom, a place of equality,” Cunha said. “But clearly we’re not there and we’re not going to get there anytime soon.”

Troy Hicks, who had a great-grandfather born in Canada, said he was spurred by an international trip.

“I recently went to Australia and you know, first words out of the first person I talked to in Australia was basically an expletive about Trump and the U.S.,” said Hicks, of Pahrump, Nevada. “It was just like, whoa, I walked off a 20-hour flight and literally the first words of somebody’s mouth to me were that. … So the idea of doing that with a Canadian passport just seemed easier, better, more palatable.”

Maureen Sullivan, of Naples, Florida, said she was motivated by the immigration crackdown in Minnesota, which hit home when her teenage nephew encountered federal officers near his high school in St. Paul. Sullivan, whose grandmother was Canadian, said she sees citizenship in Canada as an option in case things in the U.S. “really go south.”

“When I first heard about the bill, I couldn’t believe it. It was like this little gift that fell in my lap,” Sullivan said. “There was kind of this collective excitement amongst the (family) who just felt like, we wanted to feel like we were doing something to take care of our security in the future if needed.”

How much will Canadian citizenship cost?

For those with documentation ready at hand, the proof of citizenship application fee is a relatively inexpensive 75 Canadian dollars ($55).

But costs will climb for those seeking help from an attorney or genealogist to locate records like birth, death and marriage certificates that can establish the lineage to a Canadian ancestor.

Cunha said she used an attorney and estimates the cost will be about $6,500.

However, Mary Mangan, of Somerville, Massachusetts, filed her application in January using advice from online forums.

“There are some situations where a lawyer might be the right thing, but for many people, I would guess 90% of people can probably do this on their own,” Mangan said.

The website for the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada office, which processes applications, says processing times for a certificate is around 10 months, with more 56,000 people awaiting a decision.

The agency said that from Dec. 15 to Jan. 31, it confirmed citizenship by descent for 1,480 people, though not all were Americans. Last year, 24,500 Americans gained dual U.S.-Canada citizenship.

What’s the reaction in Canada?

Fen Hampson, professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, said Canadians are generally a “welcoming people.”

Hampson said some also worry a surge of interest from Americans could delay efforts by refugees and asylum-seekers fleeing vulnerable situations.

“I think where people start looking askance is someone who’s never been to Canada, who has very thin ties. They can get a passport, becoming Canadians of convenience. People don’t like that,” he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/millions-of-americans-may-now-also-be-considered-canadian-under-a-new-law

Source: The New York Times, Miriam Jordan
Photo: Staff Sergeant Matthew Blank and his mother, Jen Rickling, outside the detention center in Basile, La., where his wife is being held. (Lily Brooks for The New York Times)

The 22-year-old wife of an Army staff sergeant came to the U.S. as a toddler. She was taken from a military base where the couple planned to live.

A U.S. Army staff sergeant and his wife arrived at his base in Louisiana last week, expecting to begin their life together as newlyweds.

The couple checked in at the visitor center, identification in hand, ready to complete the steps that would allow her to move into his home on the base.

Within hours, that plan had unraveled.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents entered the base and detained his wife, an undocumented Honduran immigrant who was brought to the U.S. as a toddler. By nightfall, she was in a detention facility with hundreds of women facing deportation as part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

The detention came just days after Annie Ramos, 22, a college student with no criminal record, and Matthew Blank, 23, celebrated their marriage with family and friends. Sergeant Blank, who enlisted more than five years ago, is assigned to a brigade at Fort Polk, La. that is set to begin training at the end of the month for deployment.

“Our plan was to drive over, bring her to the office to get her military ID and activate her military spouse benefits,” such as health and life insurance, he said. “She was going to move in after the Easter weekend. Instead, she got ripped away from me.”

When U.S. citizens marry undocumented immigrants, their spouses become eligible for legal permanent residency through marriage, and they can apply for citizenship three years after receiving their green card.

Even those with a prior deportation order, often issued when they were children, are not typically detained and are able to adjust their immigration status, experts said.

Before they were married, Ms. Ramos and Sergeant Blank had hired a lawyer to begin that process.

“I knew she didn’t have status,” he said. “We were doing everything the right way.”

Or so they thought.

Ms. Ramos had been ordered deported in absentia in 2005, when she was 22 months old, after her family failed to appear at a hearing in immigration court, a circumstance that was “very common, “ according to Margaret Stock, who wrote a book called “Immigration Law and the Military.”

“Prior to the Trump administration creating a mass deportation policy, somebody like her would not have been detained,’’ said Ms. Stock, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve who practices immigration law and who has handled many similar cases.

She said the military would typically have allowed Ms. Ramos to get her military ID and told the couple to file their immigration papers.

In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said that Ms. Ramos had been arrested “after she attempted to enter a military base.”

“She has no legal status to be in this country and was issued a final order of removal by a judge,” the statement read. “This administration is not going to ignore the rule of law.”

The U.S. Army did not immediately comment.

Ms. Ramos and Sergeant Blank’s story began early last year. The couple connected through a dating app, then met in person and their romance blossomed. They were engaged on New Year’s Day.

In late March, about 60 guests gathered to celebrate their wedding in Houston, where Ms. Ramos was raised. A mariachi band played as the guests shared a meal of fried chicken, Spanish rice and mashed potatoes.

Sergeant Blank’s mother Jen Rickling, said in an interview that her daughter-in-law was “absolutely a darling, and we adore her” and listed her qualities.

Ms. Ramos is a devout Christian who teaches Sunday school to children at her church, Ms. Rickling said. She was in her high school’s marching band. And she was a few months from finishing a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry.

On April 2, the couple and Sergeant Blank’s parents drove from Houston to the base, arriving early for a 2 p.m. appointment. As instructed, the couple checked in at the visitor center, where they presented Ms. Ramos’s birth certificate, Honduran passport, their marriage license and Sergeant Blank’s military ID.

They never made it to the benefits office.

According to Sergeant Blank and his mother, an attendant scrutinized the documents and asked if Ms. Ramos had a visa or a green card. She did not, they explained, noting that their lawyer had prepared a green card application that would be filed any day.

The attendant made a flurry of calls.

“They told us, ‘We’ll figure it out,’ ’’ recalled Sergeant Blank.

He said that he and his wife were respectful and he kept his composure despite thinking that the officials were “dragging it out.” Tears began to stream down his wife’s face.

A supervisor was called, followed by an officer from the base’s criminal investigation division, who said he would contact Homeland Security and ICE.

After the call, Sergeant Blank said, the officer told them Ms. Ramos would be detained. The family broke down in tears.

Ms. Ramos was separated from them, placed in handcuffs and driven away in a military police vehicle. Sergeant Blank said he and his parents followed in their truck to another building, where she was unshackled and placed in what “looked like an interrogation room.”

Three ICE agents arrived. They first encountered Ms. Rickling and her husband in the lobby.

“They told us that they didn’t have a choice, they said they had to take Annie,” recalled Ms. Rickling. She said they apologized.

“I begged them not to take her,” Ms. Rickling said. “They said the higher-ups made them do it.”

The agents entered the room, offered the couple the same explanation, again shackled Ms. Ramos and took her away.

Their lawyer has asked ICE to release Ms. Ramos on her own recognizance while a motion is prepared to reopen the old deportation order, which would block her removal.

Ms. Stock, the expert on immigration and the military, said ICE could deport Ms. Ramos at any moment.

“It’s fundamentally harmful to national security to be doing this to members of the military, particularly while there is a war going on,” Ms. Stock said. “This is a major crisis for this soldier. His mind can’t be on the job.”

Gaby Pacheco, president of TheDream.US, submitted a letter of support for Ms. Ramos, whose education is being funded by the organization, which provides scholarships to undocumented immigrant youth.

Ms. Ramos had applied in 2020 for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA, a program that shields from deportation undocumented people brought to the U.S. as children. Her application was never processed by the Trump administration because the program was halted for new applicants.

“I grew up here like any American,” Ms. Ramos said during a call from the detention center in Basile, La.

“This is all I know,” she said. “My husband and family are here.”

Sergeant Blank said: “We are going to fight with everything I have. She is going to move in with me. We will start a family.”

Sergeant Blank, who has been previously deployed to the Middle East and Europe, said that his chain of command has been supportive as he works to resolve the situation.

“I am going to be with her and serve my country,” he said

On Saturday, he and his mother traveled to the detention center in Basile, La. with the completed form to apply for Ms. Ramos’s green card. It only needed her signature.

Guards barred them from bringing anything inside.

Georgia Gee contributed research.

Miriam Jordan reports from a grass roots perspective on immigrants and their impact on the demographics, society and economy of the United States.

A version of this article appears in print on April 7, 2026, Section A, Page 13 of the New York edition with the headline: Federal Agents Detain The Newlywed Spouse Of an Army Sergeant.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/05/us/ice-detains-military-wife-soldier-deployment

Source New York Times, Erik Wemple
Photo: A federal judge ordered the press passes of seven journalists for The New York Times to be restored. (CrLucia Vazquez for The New York Times)

A federal judge tossed parts of the Pentagon’s restrictions on news outlets, saying they violated the First Amendment, in a lawsuit brought by The New York Times.

A federal judge ruled on Friday that the Pentagon’s restrictions on news outlets violate the First Amendment and issued an order tossing parts of the Defense Department’s policy, handing a victory to The New York Times, which filed suit in December over the restrictions.

Judge Paul Friedman, of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, also ordered the Pentagon to restore the press passes of seven journalists for The Times. They had surrendered those passes in October instead of signing the policy, which empowered the Pentagon to declare journalists “security risks” and revoke their press passes if they engaged in any conduct that the Pentagon believed threatened national security.

In his 40-page ruling, Judge Friedman wrote that the Pentagon’s policy rewarded reporters who were “willing to publish only stories that are favorable to or spoon-fed by department leadership.”

Siding with an argument advanced by The Times, Judge Friedman added that the Pentagon had given itself too much power to enforce its new rules. The policy also violates journalists’ due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, he said, writing that it “provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”

The ruling was a defeat for the Trump administration, which has been engaged in a multifaceted pressure campaign against the news media. ABC News and CBS News’s parent company agreed to multimillion-dollar settlements to resolve suits that President Trump brought against the networks. The ABC late-night star Jimmy Kimmel was temporarily pulled off the air last year after Mr. Trump’s top communications regulator assailed his program and suggested that he might take regulatory action against the broadcaster.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former host on Fox News, has continued Mr. Trump’s adversarial stance toward the news media. He proposed denying access to Pentagon to a reporter from NBC News, then removed several news organizations from their on-site workstations. Months later, he curtailed the unescorted roaming privileges of journalists within the complex.

Friday’s ruling against the Pentagon followed a similarly stark decision this month from a federal judge to restore the operations of Voice of America, a government-funded news organization that Mr. Trump had ordered shuttered a year ago in an executive order.

A spokesman for The Times said Judge Friedman’s ruling “reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf,” adding that “Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars.”

Sean Parnell, the chief spokesman at the Pentagon, said in an X post, “We disagree with the decision and are pursuing an immediate appeal.”

The Pentagon policy took effect in October and drew condemnations from numerous mainstream outlets for penalizing news-gathering methods long protected by the First Amendment. Dozens of journalists who had press passes to the Pentagon turned them in rather than sign the new policy. The Defense Department then welcomed a new set of credentialed media members, most of them pro-Trump commentators or influencers.

The Pentagon’s policy also required journalists to agree not to solicit information from military employees unless the employees were authorized to speak for the Pentagon. The Times had argued that the policy required the press to publish only official statements.

At a March 6 hearing, Judge Friedman signaled his frustration with the rules. A Justice Department lawyer representing the Defense Department, for instance, drew an animated response from the judge when he argued that journalists don’t have First Amendment protections when they solicit the “disclosure of unauthorized information.”

“Why not? Why not?” Judge Friedman replied, adding that department officials can simply refuse to answer such inquiries from journalists, but there is “no proscription” on journalists’ asking questions.

Judge Friedman had also appeared skeptical of a provision in the policy declaring off-limits certain journalistic tip requests. Though the Pentagon drew a bright line delineating prohibited tip requests from problematic ones, Judge Friedman said: “I don’t understand that argument. I hope that the government can explain it.”

In his ruling on Friday, Judge Friedman closed his opinion by citing his own statements from the bench during oral arguments.

“A lot of things need to be held tightly and secure,” the judge said, referring to the department’s security imperatives. “But openness and transparency allows members of the public to know what their government is doing in times of peace and, more important, in times of war and upheaval.”

In the March 6 hearing, the Justice Department asked that the court send the rules back to the Defense Department for refining — so that the Pentagon could “rehabilitate the policy” — rather than toss out the disputed provisions.

Judge Friedman on Friday instead tossed out the policy for all of the journalists who cover the Pentagon. The Pentagon Press Association, which represents journalists on the national security beat, called for the “immediate reinstatement” of all of its members.

Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in a statement that “the court affirmed that our security and liberty rely on the press’s freedom to publish and the public’s ability to access news about government affairs free from state control.”

A version of this article appears in print on March 21, 2026, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Pentagon Restrictions on Press Unconstitutional, a Judge Rules.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/20/business/media/pentagon-press-restrictions-new-york-times

Source: CREW, Robert Maguire
Photo: Miru Osuga/CREW

This article was originally published on April 14, 2025. We also asked ChatGPT (not the author) if the Trump Organization used undocumented workers at its construction sites and properties. ChatGPT’s response appears at the end of this article. It appears Trump’s hypocrisy is alive and well.

While President Donald Trump and his administration reiterate the need to “hire American” and crack down on both documented and undocumented immigrants alike, his company is again seeking seasonal foreign workers for one of the luxury resorts he still profits from as president. The request from Trump’s business comes days after his administration released a raft of new seasonal work visas, fulfilling a request from a group that held a fundraiser at another Trump resort less than two weeks earlier.

The timeline demonstrates how Trump’s company benefits from special interest spending aimed at influencing his administration, while it also takes advantage of his administration’s policies.

The New York Times recently reported that industry lobbyists anxious about the Trump administration’s delayed release of a new batch of H-2B visas, which allow foreign workers to do seasonal work in the United States, held a fundraiser last month at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort. Less than two weeks later, the Trump administration announced that the visas would continue to be issued.

On the same day the fundraiser was reported by the Times—just five days after the administration released the new visa spots—President Trump’s Bedminster, N.J. country club filed a request with the Department of Labor’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification, seeking seven cooks and a bartender. Two days after that, it posted positions for nine servers.

The job openings mark the first time in Trump’s second term that his business has sought to hire new foreign workers—though there are listings for open positions at Trump’s Virginia winery that were posted last December.

The announcement for the event, held by the Seasonal Employment Alliance’s PAC, highlighted the intentional choice of Mar-a-Lago as a venue and framed Trump’s businesses as an avenue for influence with the new administration. “Given Trump’s victory,” the release states, “the Mar-a-Lago event calendar is full, and we were very fortunate to have secured a spot on their calendar, especially a night where there is a decent chance President Trump will be there.” It notes that the “exclusive opportunity for SEA members” was “due to the generosity of SEA board member and Mar-a-Lago member Peter Petrina.” (In addition to being a paying customer at Trump’s club, Petrina has contracted with the Trump Organization in the past to recruit foreign workers for its properties.)

The invitation for the fundraiser notes opportunities for members to stay at Mar-a-Lago and play golf at Trump’s nearby course—both of which sold out. And if that didn’t offer members enough opportunities to spend money at Trump’s businesses, the invitation notes that they can head to another Trump property an hour away, Trump Doral in Miami, and take advantage of special rates for two more nights.

And this interplay between special interests and Trump’s own business interests was all too predictable. Not only does the Trump Organization have a history of hiring undocumented immigrant and passing over American applicants for foreign workers, it also has a history of using legal pathways for foreign seasonal workers like this, which he now oversees as president. In 2020, CREW detailed how Trump’s businesses benefitted from the actions taken by his administration, including the H-2B visas that provide his business the opportunity to hire the foreign workers he has built a political career on vilifying.

Pouring money into the president’s businesses with the hope of getting face time with the president—all while his businesses take advantage of his administration’s policies—is one of the clearest demonstrations of the corruption that has been at the core of Trump’s public service career.

Last year, Trump’s businesses reportedly sought to hire more foreign workers than any prior year on record, and the new data shows that his businesses will continue to seek foreign workers while he is president, one of the very groups of people that he has publicly disparaged for years.

Here is what ChatGPT had to say about the Trump Organization’s hiring practices:

Yes — there is a documented record that the Trump Organization did employ undocumented workers at various times and places, despite public statements by Donald Trump and company representatives denying or minimizing it. The details are based on multiple news investigations and legal records:

Investigated Instances of Undocumented Workers

1. Golf Clubs and Resorts (2010s)
Investigations by The Washington Post and others found that undocumented immigrants worked for years in jobs like housekeeping, groundskeeping, and food service at multiple Trump Organization properties, including golf clubs in New York, New Jersey, Florida, and other locations. Some workers said they started years earlier and believed managers knew they lacked legal work authorization. After these reports, the company fired dozens of such workers and later expanded its use of the E-Verify system to check new hires.

2. Westchester and New Jersey Clubs
At Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, NY, and in Bedminster, NJ, workers alleged they were hired despite being undocumented; in some cases, supervisors reportedly helped workers obtain fake Social Security cards and green cards.

3. 1980 Trump Tower Site
During the demolition of the Bonwit Teller building (pre-Trump Tower), hundreds of undocumented Polish laborers worked on the site. Trump later denied knowing about this, but testimony and legal filings indicated his team was aware. A lawsuit over this labor dispute was settled in 1998 for approximately $1.4 million.

Company Response vs. Allegations
Official Denials: Trump and his spokespeople have denied knowingly hiring undocumented workers and noted the use of E-Verify at many properties.

Investigative Findings: Journalistic investigations documented multiple cases where undocumented workers were employed for long periods, often before broader use of verification systems.

Legal and Public Reaction

Settlements & Lawsuits: The Bonwit Teller/Polish workers case resulted in a long-settled suit; there haven’t been major criminal penalties tied directly to these employment practices.

Political Scrutiny: Members of Congress and advocacy groups have called for investigations into these alleged hiring practices.

Summary

Yes, according to multiple credible investigations and legal records, the Trump Organization employed undocumented workers at various properties over the years — including in housekeeping, groundskeeping, and other roles — even while company leaders publicly denied or disputed these practices.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/as-trump-pursues-mass-deportation-his-businesses-again-seek-foreign-workers

Source: MSN, BrieAnna J. Frank, USA TODAY
Photo: U.S. Customs and Border Protection proposed new rules that may require selfies and social media history from foreign visitors traveling to the U.S. (© Getty Images)

Applicants for certain visas will have their online presence reviewed as part of a new State Department policy that went into effect on Dec. 15.

The policy expands previous online review requirements, which applied to foreign students and exchange visitors, to include all H-1B applicants, who work in specialty occupations and are seeking temporary entry to the United States, as well as their dependents.

The State Department announced the new policy in early December, saying applicants are “instructed to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media profiles to ‘public’” to facilitate the review.

“The Trump Administration is focused on protecting our nation and our citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process,” a State Department spokesperson told USA TODAY. “A U.S. visa is a privilege, not a right.”

The change comes months after President Donald Trump introduced a $100,000 annual application fee for H-1B visas.

Courts have historically affirmed that First Amendment rights are applicable to people lawfully within U.S. borders, even if they aren’t American citizens. That includes a district judge’s September ruling against the Trump administration over its efforts to deport noncitizen student protesters over their pro-Palestine speech.

“No one’s freedom of speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike,” the judge wrote in the ruling, which the administration vowed to appeal.

The government far more discretion when it comes to making speech-based visa decisions about foreigners physically outside of the country.

Here’s what to know about the new policy and its First Amendment implications:

What online content would disqualify an applicant?

The department “uses all available information in visa screening and vetting to identify visa applicants who are inadmissible to the United States, including those who pose a threat to U.S. national security or public safety,” the announcement said.

The public announcement did not provide details on what officials would be specifically looking for in the reviews or what types of content would be deemed disqualifying.

Reuters previously reported that H-1B application reviews will consider a person’s participation in “censorship,” including work in disinformation, content moderation and fact-checking, to be potentially disqualifying, according to a State Department cable obtained by the news organization.

“If you uncover evidence an applicant was responsible for, or complicit in, censorship or attempted censorship of protected expression in the United States, you should pursue a finding that the applicant is ineligible,” the cable said, according to Reuters.

Why was this policy created?

The new policy was announced around the same time as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services paused immigration applications from 19 countries deemed by the administration to be high-risk.

The agency’s Dec. 2 memo specifically referenced a foiled Election Day terrorist attack in 2024 and the shooting of two National Guard members patrolling Washington in late November.

Another Afghan man was arrested in connection with the Washington shooting, which killed 20-year-old West Virginia National Guard member Sarah Beckstrom. The other victim in the attack, 24-year-old U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, was “slowly healing” as of early December.

“In light of identified concerns and the threat to the American people, USCIS has determined that a comprehensive re-review, potential interview and re-interview of all aliens from high-risk countries of concern who entered the United States on or after Jan. 20, 2021, is necessary,” the memo said.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Dec. 9 proposed a rule that would impose new biometric requirements and increased data collection for foreign tourists.

Why are some concerned about the policy?

Some experts said the lack of public information about what the online presence reviews would specifically entail have left immigration attorneys unsure how to advise their clients.

The expanded requirements could cause a “big interruption” for American businesses wanting to hire foreign workers whose application processes are being delayed by the more thorough reviews, immigration attorney Matthew Maiona said.

Many visa applicants have already received communication delaying their appointments by several months, he said.

He noted, though, that consulates and embassies have a right to review applicants’ backgrounds and make determinations about potential threats.

But there are also “gray areas,” and the lack of specifics has left attorneys “scrambling” to figure out how to advise their clients, Kate Angustia, supervisory policy and practice counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said.

It’s unclear, for example, if the administration would reject an H-1B applicant’s request because their child posted “Free Palestine” on social media, she said.

“We don’t know the scope of the problem, but the fact that anybody’s free speech could be abridged is problematic and is something we don’t support,” Angustia said.

Why do some support the policy?

But others challenged the notion that the policy presents free speech challenges.

“Nobody who is not a citizen of the United States has an inherent right to come to the United States,” said Ira Mehlman, media director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks to reduce overall immigration. “We can make decisions based on any number of considerations.”

He noted the policy is not based on immutable characteristics like race or religion, adding that the U.S. Supreme Court has given the president “broad latitude” to define what constitutes a national security threat.

Community member Ana waves an American-Mexican flag in a show of support for detainees near federal agents blocking protestors during an ICE immigration raid at a nearby licensed cannabis farm on July 10, 2025 near Camarillo, California. Ana said she knows some of those detained and their families. Protestors stood off with federal agents for hours outside the farm in the farmworker community in Ventura County. A Los Angeles federal judge is set to rule Friday on a temporary restraining order which would restrict area immigration enforcement operations.

Mehlman made a distinction between mere policy disagreement and “overtly anti-American kind of rhetoric,” saying that the latter can be disqualifying because being granted an American visa is a “privilege, not a right,” echoing language used by the State Department in announcing the new policy.

“There have always been ideological exclusions,” Mehlman said. “We don’t admit Nazis to the country, even if Microsoft wants to hire them.”

BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@usatoday.com.

USA TODAY’s coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: New visa rules require social media reviews. What it means for free speech

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-visa-rules-require-social-media-reviews-what-it-means-for-free-speech

Source: MSN, Somaiyah Hafeez
Photo: Kinard Lisbon, AP (Copyright: South Carolina Department of Corrections)

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday to bring the death penalty to Washington, D.C. The presidential memorandum directed Pam Bondi, the U.S. Attorney General, and Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, to fully implement the death penalty in Washington, D.C.

While signing the order, Trump once again said that after deploying the National Guard in the capital, crime rates have gone down. He said that there wasn’t a single murder in four weeks, an unverified claim.

“This is a very safe city now”, Trump said.

“This went from the most unsafe city in the country to the safest city in the country”, Trump said while making these unverified claims.

Trump said that female workers at the White House have been thanking him for making the city safer.

“Capital punishment for the capital city”, he joked.

The attorney general said that the administration is seeking the death penalty not only in the capital but across the country.

Last month, Donald Trump said he plans to bring capital punishment back to Washington, D.C., as he discussed his crackdown on crime in the nation’s capital during a Cabinet meeting.

“If somebody kills somebody in the capital, Washington, D.C., we’re going to be seeking the death penalty,” he clarified. “And that’s a very strong preventative. And everybody that’s heard it agrees with it.”

Capital punishment has been abolished in D.C. since 1981, when the D.C. Council voted to repeal it. The last time anyone was executed in the district was in 1957, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

Trump also signed an executive order that says a proposed agreement on bringing TikTok under U.S. ownership meets key security concerns. He said that China’s Xi has approved of proposed deal putting TikTok under U.S. ownership.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-signs-order-to-bring-death-penalty-to-washington

Source: CNN, John Fritze
Photo: Demonstrators protest for immigrant rights outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on May 15. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court is turning to the final weeks of a busy term that started off with blockbuster appeals over transgender rights and TikTok but that has increasingly become wrapped up in the policies and politics of President Donald Trump.

With more than half of its argued cases from the term that began in October still pending, the justices are now working toward issuing a flurry of opinions through the end of June that could have profound implications for the federal government, religious interest groups and millions of American people.

The 6-3 conservative court’s end-of-term push has been complicated and overshadowed this year by more than a dozen emergency appeals tied to Trump’s second term, including cases dealing with mass firings, immigration and the president’s efforts to end birthright citizenship. Those cases will continue even after the court rises for its summer break.

Here are some of the most important outstanding appeals:

Birthright citizenship

The first argued appeal involving Trump’s second term has quickly emerged as one of the most significant cases the justices may decide in coming weeks. The Justice Department claims that three lower courts vastly overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order limiting birthright citizenship.

Whatever the justices say about the power of courts to halt a president’s executive order on a nationwide basis could have an impact beyond birthright citizenship. Trump has, for months, vociferously complained about courts pausing dozens of his policies with nationwide injunctions.

While the question is important on its own – it could shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches – the case was supercharged by the policy at issue: Whether a president can sign an executive order that upends more than a century of understanding, the plain text of the 14th Amendment and multiple Supreme Court precedents pointing to the idea that people born in the US are US citizens.

During the May 15 arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed apprehensive to let the policy take effect.

Transgender care for minors

Tennessee is among a growing number of states to enact laws limiting or banning gender-affirming care for minors. Republican lawmakers who support those bans say that decisions about the care should be made after an individual becomes an adult and that states have broad power to regulate medical treatment within their boundaries.

During oral arguments in December, a majority of the court appeared inclined to agree.

Before Trump took office, the Tennessee transgender case, US v. Skrmetti, was the court’s highest-profile pending appeal. Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban restricts puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors and enacts civil penalties for doctors who violate the law. Surgeries are not at issue in the Supreme Court case.

The litigation will decided at a time when both the Trump administration and GOP lawmakers across the country are attempting to unwind the political and legal gains that transgender Americans have made in recent years.

LGBTQ+ books in school

The high court is also set to decide whether a school district in suburban Washington burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ+ books in the classroom.

As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County Public Schools approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue in the case. One, “Prince & Knight,” tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, “filling the king and queen with joy,” according to the school’s summary. The parents said the reading of the books violated their religious beliefs.

The case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when parents and public school districts have been engaged in a tense struggle over how much sway families should have over public school instruction.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority signaled during arguments in late April that it would side with the parents in the case, continuing the court’s yearslong push to expand religious rights.

Preventive health care and government power

The court is juggling several major cases challenging the power of federal agencies. One of those deals with the creation of a task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no-cost under Obamacare.

Though the case deals with technical questions about who should appoint the members of a board that makes those recommendations, the decision could affect the ability of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as cancer screenings, statins that help prevent cardiovascular disease and PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections.

During arguments in late April, the court signaled it may uphold the task force.

The court also seemed skeptical of a conservative challenge to the Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to pay for programs that expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income communities. Phone companies contribute billions to that fund, a cost that is passed on to consumers. A conservative group challenged the fund as an unconstitutional “delegation” of the power of Congress to levy taxes.

If the court upholds the structure of the programs’ funding, that would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress.

Never-ending emergencies

In years past, the Supreme Court had tended to make little news after the justices hand down their final opinions of the term and step back from their mahogany bench in the last days of June. Those days may be over.

Since Trump began his second term in January, the court has been confronted with more than a dozen emergency appeals dealing with policies from the White House and federal agencies.

Though he has railed against the federal judiciary in recent months, Trump has won more emergency cases at the Supreme Court in recent weeks than he has lost. The high court has allowed him to bar transgender Americans from serving in the military for now, end temporary deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans and remove board members at independent agencies that Congress tried to shield from White House control.

On the other hand, the court has blocked the administration from quickly deporting migrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act without additional notice.

Given how many lawsuits are pending in lower federal courts, the pace of emergency cases is unlikely to slow just because the justices are eager to leave Washington for summer vacations.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/27/politics/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-transgender-care

Source: Fast Company, Dee-Ann Durbin, AP Business Writer
Photo: A food delivery rider waits for the traffic light to change Monday, March 30, 2020, in Lone Tree, Colo. (David Zalubowski, File/AP Photo)

DoorDash has been under pressure to ensure its drivers are operating legally.

DoorDash will require its drivers to verify their identities more often as part of a larger effort to crack down on unauthorized account sharing.

DoorDash has been under pressure to ensure its drivers are operating legally. Over the summer, for example, it pledged to do a better job identifying and removing dangerous drivers after a flood of complaints of dangerous driving from cities.

Officials in Boston, New York and other cities have said that in many cases, people with multiple traffic violations continue to make deliveries using accounts registered to others.

The San Francisco delivery company said Thursday it was requiring some drivers to complete real-time identity checks immediately after they complete a delivery. Previously, drivers were occasionally asked to re-verify their identities before or after a shift.

DoorDash has introduced the new system in Los Angeles, Denver, Seattle and other cities, and said it planned a wider rollout next year.

DoorDash said it also has developed an advanced machine learning system that can flag potential unauthorized account access, including login anomalies and suspicious activity. If the company detects a problem, it will require drivers to re-verify their identity before they can make more deliveries.

U.S. drivers must verify their identities with a driver’s license or other government-issued identification, and upload a selfie that matches their identification photo before they can do work for DoorDash. They also must submit to background checks, which require a Social Security number.

The company said it found that some drivers were getting around the requirements by sharing accounts with authorized users. In some cases, drivers who were not authorized to drive for DoorDash paid authorized users for access to their accounts.

Some federal lawmakers have demanded that DoorDash and other delivery apps do a better job of keeping people who are in the U.S. illegally off the platforms.

Republican U.S. Sens. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Mike Braun of Indiana and Ted Budd of North Carolina sent letters to delivery companies in April asking them to crack down on account sharing.

“These illegal immigrants are delivering food directly to consumers’ doors without ever having undergone a background check and often without even using their real names,” the letter said. It added that working illegally can also be dangerous for migrants, creating the potential for exploitation and abuse.

The Associated Press left messages seeking comment Thursday with Gig Workers Rising and Justice for App Workers, which both represent delivery drivers.

DoorDash won’t estimate how many drivers are using shared accounts, but said its safeguards are effective. Last year, it began asking drivers to re-verify their identities monthly by submitting a selfie. The company said it is now asking more than 150,000 drivers to complete selfie checks each week, and it’s removing them from the platform if they don’t comply.

https://www.fastcompany.com/91246654/doordash-stepping-up-driver-id-checks-heres-why

Source: The Guardian
Photo: A person stands in front of a Meta sign outside of the company’s headquarters in Menlo Park, California, on 7 March 2023. (Jeff Chiu/AP)

Groundbreaking bill aims to reduce potential AI risks – requiring model testing and disclosure of safety protocol

A California bill that would establish first-in-the-nation safety measures for the largest artificial intelligence systems cleared an important vote Wednesday. The proposal, aiming to reduce potential risks created by AI, would require companies to test their models and publicly disclose their safety protocols to prevent the models from being manipulated to, for example, wipe out the state’s electric grid or help build chemical weapons – scenarios experts say could be possible in the future with such rapid advancements in the industry.

The measure squeaked by in the state assembly Wednesday and won procedural approval in the state senate. It now heads to the governor’s desk for his signature, though he has not indicated his position on it. Governor Gavin Newsom has until the end of September to decide whether to sign it into law, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature. He declined to weigh in on the measure earlier this summer but had warned against AI overregulation.

Supporters said it would set some of the first much-needed safety ground rules for large-scale AI models in the United States. The bill targets systems that require more than $100m in data to train. No current AI models have hit that threshold.

The proposal, authored by Democratic senator Scott Wiener, faced fierce opposition from venture capital firms and tech companies, including OpenAI, Google and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. They say safety regulations should be established by the federal government and that the California legislation takes aim at developers instead of targeting those who use and exploit the AI systems for harm.

Wiener said his legislation took a “light touch” approach.

“Innovation and safety can go hand in hand – and California is leading the way,” he said in a statement after the vote.

Wiener’s proposal is among dozens of AI bills California lawmakers proposed this year to build public trust, fight algorithmic discrimination and outlaw deepfakes that involve elections or pornography. With AI increasingly affecting the daily lives of Americans, state legislators have tried to strike a balance of reigning in the technology and its potential risks without stifling the booming homegrown industry.

California, home of 35 of the world’s top 50 AI companies, has been an early adopter of AI technologies and could soon deploy generative AI tools to address highway congestion and road safety, among other things.

Elon Musk, owner of Twitter/X, and founder of xAI, threw his support behind the proposal this week, though he said it was a “tough call”. X operates its own chatbot and image generator, Grok, that has fewer safeguards in place than other prominent AI models.

“For over 20 years, I have been an advocate for AI regulation, just as we regulate any product/technology that is a potential risk to the public,” Musk tweeted.

A group of several California house members also opposed the bill, with former House speaker Nancy Pelosi calling it “well-intentioned but ill informed”.

Chamber of Progress, a left-leaning Silicon Valley-funded industry group, said the bill is “based on science fiction fantasies of what AI could look like”.

“This bill has more in common with Blade Runner or The Terminator than the real world,” senior tech policy director Todd O’Boyle said in a statement after the Wednesday vote. “We shouldn’t hamstring California’s leading economic sector over a theoretical scenario.”

The legislation is also supported by Anthropic, an AI startup backed by Amazon and Google, after Wiener adjusted the bill earlier this month to include some of the company’s suggestions. The current bill removed a penalty of perjury provision, limited the state attorney general’s power to sue violators and narrowed the responsibilities of a new AI regulatory agency.

Anthropic said in a letter to Newsom that the bill is crucial to prevent catastrophic misuse of powerful AI systems and that “its benefits likely outweigh its costs”.

He also slammed critics earlier this week for dismissing potential catastrophic risks from powerful AI models as unrealistic: “If they really think the risks are fake, then the bill should present no issue whatsoever.”

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I wanted to ask if you would consider supporting the Guardian’s journalism as we enter one of the most consequential news cycles of our lifetimes in 2024.

We have never been more passionate about exposing the multiplying threats to our democracy and holding power to account in America. In the heat of a tumultuous presidential race, with the threat of a more extreme second Trump presidency looming, there is an urgent need for free, trustworthy journalism that foregrounds the stakes of November’s election for our country and planet.

Yet, from Elon Musk to the Murdochs, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.

And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media: the tendency, born of a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. We always strive to be fair. But sometimes that means calling out the lies of powerful people and institutions – and making clear how misinformation and demagoguery can damage democracy.

From threats to election integrity, to the spiraling climate crisis, to complex foreign conflicts, our journalists contextualize, investigate and illuminate the critical stories of our time. As a global news organization with a robust US reporting staff, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective – one so often missing in the American media bubble.

Around the world, readers can access the Guardian’s paywall-free journalism because of our unique reader-supported model. That’s because of people like you. Our readers keep us independent, beholden to no outside influence and accessible to everyone – whether they can afford to pay for news, or not.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/29/california-ai-regulation-bill