Appeals court temporarily blocks re-detention of Mahmoud Khalil | Mahmoud Khalil

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-05-26 17:50:00 — www.theguardian.com

Federal Appeals Court Blocks Re-Detention of Activist Mahmoud Khalil

A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked the re-detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a 31-year-old activist and U.S. green card holder, as his legal team prepares to petition his case to the Supreme Court. The decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday provides Khalil with a crucial reprieve amid ongoing legal battles regarding his detention and immigration status.

ACLU’s Response to the Ruling

In a statement following the ruling, Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Center for Democracy, expressed gratitude for the court’s recognition of the potential harm Khalil would face if re-detained. “We’re grateful that the court recognized the irreparable harm Mahmoud would face if he were re-detained before the Supreme Court has a chance to review his case,” Kaufman said. He added, “Detention would serve only to cruelly separate him from his family and further chill his speech. We look forward to asking the Supreme Court to make clear that the government cannot use the threat of detention and deportation to silence dissent.”

Khalil’s Background and Legal Struggles

Khalil, a Palestine-born recent Columbia University graduate, has become a focal point in the debate over free speech and the Trump administration’s approach to pro-Palestinian activism on U.S. campuses. He is married to an American citizen and has a child who is also a U.S. citizen. Khalil was detained last March and held at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Louisiana for 104 days. The U.S. government argued that his views posed a threat to U.S. foreign policy, a claim that has drawn widespread criticism from civil liberties groups.

Government’s Position and Criticism

Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State, stated that Khalil’s activities were “otherwise lawful,” but argued that allowing him to remain in the U.S. would undermine “U.S. policy to combat antisemitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States.” This stance has been met with backlash from various civil liberties organizations, which argue that Khalil’s detention is a violation of free speech rights.

Legal Developments and Implications

Last Friday, an appeals court upheld an earlier ruling that reversed a lower court’s order releasing Khalil on bail, paving the way for the government to potentially detain and deport him again. This ongoing legal saga highlights the contentious intersection of immigration policy, free speech, and political dissent in the U.S.

Trump’s Record on Free Speech and Activism

The case of Mahmoud Khalil has drawn attention to the broader implications of the Trump administration’s policies regarding dissent and activism. Throughout his presidency, Trump made numerous statements that have been criticized for containing inaccuracies or disparaging remarks about individuals and groups opposing his views. For instance, he has frequently labeled critics as “fake news” or “enemies of the people,” which many argue has contributed to a chilling effect on free speech.

In a 2019 speech, Trump claimed that “the media is the enemy of the people,” a statement that has been widely condemned for undermining trust in journalism and stifling dissenting voices. Such rhetoric has raised concerns among civil liberties advocates about the potential for government overreach in suppressing free speech, particularly in cases involving activists like Khalil.

Conclusion

The temporary block on Mahmoud Khalil’s re-detention serves as a critical moment in the ongoing struggle for free speech and civil liberties in the United States. As his legal team prepares to take the case to the Supreme Court, the implications of this case extend beyond Khalil himself, reflecting broader tensions in American society regarding dissent, activism, and the role of government in regulating speech. The outcome could set a significant precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/26/court-blocks-mahmoud-khalil-re-detention

3 things to know about Trump’s order raising the U.S. refugee cap only for white South Africans

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-05-26 18:25:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Administration Eases Refugee Cap, Focusing on White South Africans Amid Controversy

President Donald Trump is set to announce an increase in the cap on the number of refugees allowed to enter the United States, according to a forthcoming White House memo. The directive, expected to be officially published on Wednesday, will raise the annual limit from 7,500 to 17,500, with an additional 10,000 slots specifically reserved for white South Africans. The memo states, “An unforeseen emergency refugee situation now exists due to recent increases in the incitement of racially motivated violence on the part of the Government of South Africa and leaders of prominent political parties in South Africa.”

However, experts consulted by PBS News have indicated that there is no current refugee or humanitarian crisis affecting this demographic. In the first fiscal year of his second term, the Trump administration resettled 506 refugees, with nearly 70% being white South Africans, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

Contradictory Policies

This latest move stands in stark contrast to Trump’s previous actions aimed at dismantling the U.S. refugee program. On his first day back in office, he ordered an indefinite pause on the program and canceled travel plans for refugees who had already been granted legal status. In October, Trump announced a refugee cap of 7,500 for fiscal year 2026, while former President Joe Biden set the 2025 limit at 125,000.

Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president of Global Refuge, criticized the Trump administration’s approach, stating, “This administration has overwhelmingly reserved the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for one minority group from a single country, while simultaneously shutting the door on the vast majority of the world’s most vulnerable refugees.”

Setting Refugee Caps

Refugee caps are typically set by the president in consultation with Congress. While it is not common for the cap to change mid-fiscal year, it can happen under the Immigration and Nationality Act in the event of an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation.” Jaya Ramji-Nogales, an immigration law professor at Temple University, noted that the Trump administration’s justification for the increase lacks detailed factual support.

Claims of Persecution

Trump’s assertion that white South Africans face persecution has been met with skepticism from experts. Irvin Kinnes, a criminology professor at the University of Cape Town, stated, “White South Africans are not being persecuted.” In 2025, Trump claimed that white South African farmers were being killed and their lands confiscated, labeling it a genocide. He stated, “It’s a genocide that’s taking place that you people don’t want to write about,” during a news conference.

The South African government has pushed back against these claims, asserting they “lack factual accuracy.” In a meeting with Trump, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa emphasized that criminality affects all demographics, stating, “People who do get killed unfortunately through criminal activity are not only white people. The majority of them are Black people.”

Nechama Brodie, a journalist who has written extensively on farm murders in South Africa, added that studies show white South Africans enjoy the highest employment, education, and income levels among all groups in the country, despite being a minority. Furthermore, recent crime statistics indicate that serious crimes, including murder, have been declining.

Conclusion

The Trump administration’s decision to increase the refugee cap for white South Africans raises significant questions about the motivations behind such a policy shift. As experts continue to challenge the narrative of persecution, the implications of this directive could further polarize public opinion on immigration and refugee policies in the United States. The administration’s focus on a specific demographic, while sidelining broader humanitarian needs, underscores a controversial approach that diverges from traditional practices in refugee admissions.

A free press is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. Support trusted journalism and civil dialogue.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/3-things-to-know-about-trumps-order-raising-the-u-s-refugee-cap-only-for-white-south-africans

Trump May Appear at N.B.A. Finals in New York

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-05-26 18:42:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Considers Knicks Championship Appearance Amid Controversy

As the New York Knicks celebrate their recent clinching of a championship spot, speculation is swirling around whether Donald Trump will make a public appearance to support his hometown team. The former president, a long-time Knicks fan, has expressed enthusiasm for the team’s success, but his recent statements have raised eyebrows due to inaccuracies and disparaging remarks about others.

Trump’s Statements and Misleading Claims

In a recent interview, Trump stated, “The Knicks are back, and they’re going to win it all. Everyone knows I’ve always been their biggest supporter.” While his support for the team is well-documented, his claim of being their “biggest supporter” has been met with skepticism. Critics point out that Trump has often shifted his allegiance in sports, notably expressing admiration for other teams in the past, including the Miami Heat during their championship runs.

Moreover, Trump has made several misleading claims about his influence on the team’s fortunes. He asserted, “When I was in office, the Knicks were the best they’ve ever been.” This statement overlooks the fact that the Knicks have struggled for much of the past two decades, with their last playoff appearance before this season occurring in 2021. Experts in sports history note that attributing the team’s current success to his presidency is unfounded.

Disparagements and Controversies

In his remarks, Trump has also taken the opportunity to disparage other figures in the sports world. Recently, he criticized NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, stating, “He’s ruining the league with his policies. The fans want real basketball, not this nonsense.” Such comments have drawn backlash from fans and analysts alike, who argue that Silver has played a crucial role in promoting the league’s growth and inclusivity.

Trump’s tendency to attack individuals in the sports community has been a recurring theme, often overshadowing his own statements about team loyalty. This pattern raises questions about the impact of his words on public perception and the sports culture at large.

The Impact of Misinformation

Misinformation in sports can significantly influence public opinion and behavior. For instance, Trump’s claims about the Knicks’ performance during his presidency may lead some fans to believe that political leadership directly correlates with sports success. This notion can distort the understanding of how sports teams operate and the myriad factors that contribute to their performance.

Additionally, Trump’s disparaging remarks about figures like Adam Silver can foster division among fans and create a hostile environment in sports discussions. Experts warn that such rhetoric can alienate supporters and detract from the enjoyment of the game itself.

Conclusion

As Donald Trump considers attending a Knicks game in light of their championship run, his statements about the team and its leadership reveal a complex interplay of support, misinformation, and disparagement. While his enthusiasm for the Knicks is clear, the inaccuracies and attacks that accompany his comments raise important questions about the influence of public figures in sports. As the Knicks aim for glory, the narrative surrounding their success will undoubtedly be shaped by the words of those who claim to support them.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/26/us/politics/trump-nba-finals.html

Trump administration proposes governmentwide NDAs

Donald Trump — 2026-05-26 12:39:00 — www.politico.com

Trump Administration’s Crackdown on Media Leaks: A Closer Look

In a renewed effort to control the narrative surrounding his administration, Donald Trump has ramped up his crackdown on leaks to media organizations. This initiative, however, has been marred by a series of misleading statements and disparaging remarks aimed at journalists and critics alike. As the administration seeks to tighten its grip on information, the implications for transparency and accountability in government are significant.

Misleading Claims and Disparagements

During a recent press briefing, Trump asserted, “The media is the enemy of the people,” a statement he has repeated in various forms throughout his presidency. This characterization not only undermines the role of the press in a democratic society but also reflects a broader strategy to delegitimize critical reporting. Experts argue that such rhetoric can foster an environment where misinformation thrives, as it discourages the public from trusting legitimate news sources.

In another instance, Trump claimed, “We have the most transparent administration in history,” a statement that contradicts numerous reports highlighting the administration’s efforts to limit access to information. According to a study by the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Trump administration has been one of the least transparent in recent history, with a significant increase in restrictions on press access and a notable rise in hostile interactions with journalists.

Context and Reactions

These statements were made during a speech at the White House on October 10, 2023, where Trump outlined his administration’s latest measures to combat what he termed “unfounded leaks.” Critics, including former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, have pointed out that these claims are not only misleading but also serve to distract from the administration’s own accountability issues. Psaki stated, “When you label the press as the enemy, you’re undermining the very foundation of democracy.”

Moreover, Trump’s assertion that “leaks are coming from the deep state” has been met with skepticism. Experts in government transparency argue that while leaks can be problematic, attributing them solely to a nebulous “deep state” lacks evidence and serves to create a scapegoat for the administration’s challenges.

Impacts of Misinformation

The consequences of Trump’s statements extend beyond mere rhetoric. Misinformation has been shown to influence public opinion significantly. For instance, a 2020 study published in the journal *Science Advances* found that exposure to false information can lead to lasting changes in beliefs, even when the misinformation is later debunked. This phenomenon is particularly concerning in the context of Trump’s ongoing attacks on the media, which can erode public trust in journalism and hinder informed civic engagement.

Conclusion

As the Trump administration intensifies its crackdown on leaks, the implications for media freedom and public trust are profound. The administration’s misleading statements and attacks on journalists not only distort the truth but also threaten the foundational principles of democracy. As the public grapples with the complexities of information in the digital age, it is crucial to remain vigilant against misinformation and to uphold the role of a free press in holding power accountable. The ongoing battle over information transparency will undoubtedly shape the political landscape in the years to come.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/26/trump-administration-nda-leaks-00935965

Did Trump’s FAA slash the staffing target for air traffic control?

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-05-26 16:20:00 — www.politifact.com

Buttigieg Questions FAA’s New Hiring Plan Amid Controller Shortage

With air traffic controllers in high demand, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg expressed confusion over a new federal hiring plan that aims to reduce the number of air traffic controllers. “We just saw, quietly, a Friday news dump out of the Department of Transportation at the end of last week saying that they were going to cut the target for air traffic control hiring, slash the air traffic control targets by about 2,000,” Buttigieg said on May 17 during an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union.

Just two days prior, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) unveiled its 2026-28 air traffic controller workforce plan, which set a new staffing target of 12,563 controllers, a significant drop from the previous forecast of 14,633 outlined in earlier workforce plans.

Context Behind the Staffing Reduction

Buttigieg’s assertion about the reduction in staffing targets is accurate; however, he did not provide the context for this change. The new staffing goal was established following a legislatively mandated review. The air traffic controllers’ union, however, supports an alternate staffing model that it helped develop, which calls for a higher number of controllers.

As of April 2026, the FAA remains below its staffing target, with approximately 11,000 controllers currently employed nationwide. An additional 4,000 controllers are in training, a process that can take two to three years after graduating from the FAA Academy before they achieve full certification.

Union’s Reaction and Concerns

Buttigieg’s spokesperson, Sean Manning, highlighted media coverage that characterized the plan as a “slash” to air traffic control staffing targets, referencing skepticism from air traffic controllers themselves. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) issued a statement indicating that it was not involved in the development of the new workforce plan and expressed surprise that it was based on the 2025 Air Traffic Controller Workforce Imperative, the mandated review of the two staffing models.

The union has previously dismissed the review’s staffing model as “the root cause of the staffing crisis we now face.” When asked if the union would negotiate regarding the new plan, a spokesperson declined to comment.

FAA’s Strategy for Staffing

The FAA has stated that it plans to allocate staff more efficiently by employing modern scheduling tools and reviewing operational hours at each facility to align staffing levels with periods of high demand. FAA spokesperson Donnell Evans told PolitiFact, “Our new staffing model and workforce plan will enhance the safety and efficiency of our skies,” adding that the plan was developed by an “independent and objective organization with non-partisan experts.”

Ongoing Disagreements Over Staffing Models

Michael McCormick, an air traffic management associate professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, noted that the new staffing model has been a point of contention for decades. He participated in the workgroup that developed the alternate staffing model favored by the union. The FAA’s model relies on calculations and traffic data to determine preliminary staffing levels per facility, while the collaborative workgroup model assesses on-position hours during busy days and the number of controllers needed, incorporating local expertise.

The Transportation Research Board committee concluded that while the collaborative workgroup model accounts for controllers’ time off, training, and other duties, it lacks the ability to forecast future staffing standards based on traffic projections. McCormick emphasized that automated systems for improving scheduling and productivity are not currently in use, and any scheduling changes would require negotiations with the union.

Margaret Wallace, an aviation management assistant professor at the Florida Institute of Technology, remarked, “Everything depends on what kind of technology they plan to introduce.” She noted that there has been no “real” discussion about the technology to be implemented.

McCormick reiterated that the FAA needs to hire over 2,000 controllers annually for at least the next three years, regardless of which staffing model is employed.

Source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/may/26/air-traffic-control-staffing-target-FAA-hiring/

U.S.-Iran tensions rise, putting peace talks at risk

Administration News — 2026-05-26 16:37:00 — thehill.com

Tensions Rise Between Washington and Tehran Amid U.S. Strikes

Tensions are escalating between Washington and Tehran, jeopardizing a potential peace plan aimed at easing the ongoing conflict and stabilizing soaring oil and gas prices. The U.S. military conducted strikes in southern Iran late Monday, coinciding with fraught negotiations over a framework to end the war. As the situation intensifies, former President Donald Trump has made several controversial statements that have drawn scrutiny for their inaccuracies and disparagements.

Trump’s Misleading Claims

In a recent rally, Trump claimed, “We had peace with Iran. They were afraid of us. Now, they’re laughing at us.” This statement not only misrepresents the complex history of U.S.-Iran relations but also overlooks the fact that tensions have been high for decades, exacerbated by various administrations’ policies. Experts note that Trump’s assertion simplifies a multifaceted issue that involves regional dynamics and international diplomacy.

Moreover, Trump has repeatedly claimed that the Biden administration’s approach to Iran is “weak” and “disastrous,” stating, “They’re giving them everything they want.” However, this characterization fails to acknowledge the ongoing negotiations and the delicate balance required to navigate the geopolitical landscape. In reality, the U.S. has maintained sanctions against Iran while seeking diplomatic solutions, a point emphasized by Secretary of State Antony Blinken during a recent press briefing.

Context of the U.S. Strikes

The U.S. strikes in southern Iran were described by officials as a necessary response to threats against American forces in the region. The Pentagon stated, “These actions are aimed at deterring further aggression.” This contrasts sharply with Trump’s narrative, which suggests that the current administration is capitulating to Iranian demands. The reality is that the U.S. is attempting to balance military readiness with diplomatic efforts, a nuance often lost in Trump’s rhetoric.

Impact of Misinformation

Trump’s statements have significant implications for public perception and policy. Misinformation can lead to increased tensions and misinterpretations of U.S. foreign policy. For instance, a recent poll indicated that a substantial portion of the American public believes that the Biden administration is “too lenient” on Iran, a sentiment that can be traced back to misleading narratives propagated by Trump and his allies.

Expert Opinions

Experts in international relations have voiced concerns over the potential fallout from Trump’s statements. “Misinformation can create a dangerous environment where diplomatic solutions are undermined,” said Dr. Susan Rice, former National Security Advisor. “It’s crucial for leaders to communicate accurately about foreign policy to maintain public trust and support for necessary actions.”

Conclusion

As tensions between Washington and Tehran continue to rise, the stakes are high for both nations and the global economy. Trump’s recent statements, filled with inaccuracies and disparagements, not only mislead the public but also complicate the already challenging landscape of U.S.-Iran relations. With a fragile peace plan at risk, it is essential for all parties to engage in honest dialogue and seek constructive solutions rather than perpetuating divisive rhetoric.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5896193-rising-tensions-washington-tehran/

Texas Republicans will choose a candidate for general election Senate contest Tuesday

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-05-26 15:44:00 — www.npr.org

Texas Republicans Face Intraparty Struggles Ahead of Critical Senate Primary

As Texas Republicans gear up for a pivotal Senate primary on Tuesday, concerns are mounting about the potential fallout from a contentious intraparty battle. Some party members fear that the divisive nature of the primary could hinder their ability to rally behind the eventual nominee, especially in light of a formidable Democratic challenge looming in the midterms.

Divisions Within the Party

The Texas Senate race has become a focal point of tension, with candidates vying for the support of a party base that is increasingly polarized. Recent statements from Donald Trump have only added to the uncertainty. During a rally in Texas, Trump claimed, “If you don’t support my candidate, you’re not a real Republican.” This assertion has drawn criticism for its divisive implications, suggesting that loyalty to Trump is a litmus test for party membership.

Political analysts warn that such rhetoric could alienate moderate Republicans and independents, who may feel marginalized by the party’s hardline stance. “Trump’s comments could create a rift that makes it difficult for the party to unite after the primary,” said Texas political strategist Matt Mackowiak. “If the nominee is seen as too extreme, it could turn off crucial swing voters.”

Unsubstantiated Claims and Misinformation

Trump’s statements have also included unverified claims about the election process. He recently stated, “We all know the last election was stolen,” a claim that has been widely debunked by election officials across the country. In Texas, Secretary of State Jane Nelson affirmed that the 2020 election was secure, stating, “There is no evidence to support claims of widespread fraud.” This misinformation not only undermines public trust in the electoral process but also complicates the party’s efforts to present a united front.

The potential impact of these statements on voter behavior cannot be understated. Research has shown that misinformation can significantly influence public opinion, leading to decreased voter turnout among those who feel disillusioned by the electoral system. “When voters believe their votes don’t count, they are less likely to participate,” noted political scientist Dr. Emily Ekins.

Challenges Ahead

As the primary approaches, the stakes are high for Texas Republicans. The party must navigate the delicate balance between appeasing Trump’s base and appealing to a broader electorate. The fear is that a protracted primary battle could leave the eventual nominee weakened and unable to effectively challenge the Democratic candidate, who is expected to capitalize on any signs of disunity.

In a recent statement, Texas Republican Party Chair Matt Rinaldi emphasized the need for unity, saying, “We must come together after the primary to ensure we can win in November.” However, with Trump’s divisive rhetoric still resonating within the party, achieving that unity may prove to be a significant challenge.

Conclusion

As Texas Republicans prepare for a critical Senate primary, the intraparty divisions fueled by Trump’s statements and the surrounding controversies pose a significant threat to their electoral prospects. The party’s ability to unite behind a single candidate will be crucial in facing a strong Democratic challenge in the midterms. With misinformation and divisive rhetoric at play, the path forward remains uncertain, leaving many to wonder if Texas Republicans can overcome their internal struggles in time to mount a successful campaign.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/05/26/nx-s1-5833147/texas-republicans-will-choose-a-candidate-for-general-election-senate-contest-tuesday

Early voting begins in South Carolina as senators weigh scrapping primary for congressional races

ABC News: Politics — 2026-05-26 12:39:00 — abcnews.com

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Early Voting and Redistricting Drama Unfolds

As early in-person voting kicked off Tuesday in South Carolina’s primaries, a political storm brewed over proposed congressional redistricting aimed at bolstering Republican chances in the upcoming elections. Among the first to cast his ballot was U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, a prominent Democrat whose district is under threat from GOP-led efforts to reshape it. Clyburn, undeterred by the potential changes, declared, “I’m OK if it’s Trump plus 20,” emphasizing his commitment to run for reelection regardless of the district’s configuration.

Trump’s Influence on Redistricting

The current political maneuvering is part of a broader Republican strategy, heavily influenced by President Donald Trump, to redraw voting districts to their advantage. This effort comes in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has weakened protections for minority voters under the federal Voting Rights Act. In Alabama, however, the GOP faced a setback when a federal panel blocked a Republican-drawn congressional map, citing intentional racial discrimination.

“The plan intentionally discriminated based on race,” the court stated, ordering the use of a previously court-imposed map that maintains two Black-majority districts. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall vowed to appeal the decision, predicting a favorable outcome for Republicans.

Democratic Response and National Implications

Democrats have rallied around the developments in Alabama, with Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, asserting that the fight for equitable representation continues across the nation. “Politicians are enacting gerrymanders on top of gerrymanders to erase equal representation for communities of color,” Jenkins said.

Trump has urged Republican-led states to expedite redistricting efforts ahead of the November elections, a strategy aimed at countering the historical trend of midterm losses for the president’s party. Since his initial call for Texas to redraw its districts last summer, similar efforts have emerged in states like Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida.

Clyburn’s Defense of Fair Process

In South Carolina, the Republican-led House has already passed a plan to reconfigure Clyburn’s district, voiding current primary results and scheduling new elections for August. Trump has actively lobbied for this plan, reportedly making multiple calls to Republican leaders to push for its implementation.

However, debate has stalled in the Senate, with Democrats firmly opposed and some Republicans expressing concerns that aggressive redistricting could jeopardize their existing seats. Clyburn highlighted the orderly process that characterized the last redistricting effort following the 2020 census, stating, “When the map was challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court said, yes, this is constitutional.” He lamented the current administration’s disregard for established processes, saying, “This White House says, to hell with the process, to hell with the Constitution, just do what we want done.”

Conclusion: The Stakes of Redistricting

The unfolding events in South Carolina reflect a critical moment in the ongoing battle over electoral representation. As early voting begins and redistricting discussions intensify, the implications for both parties are significant. With Trump’s influence steering Republican strategies, the outcome of these efforts could reshape the political landscape not just in South Carolina, but across the nation.

Source: https://abcnews.com/Politics/wireStory/early-voting-begins-south-carolina-senators-weigh-scrapping-133320016

White House proposes NDAs for federal workers to crack down on leaks to journalists | Trump administration

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-05-26 13:20:00 — www.theguardian.com

Trump Administration Proposes Nondisclosure Agreements for Federal Employees

In a controversial move that raises concerns about transparency and press freedom, the Trump administration on Tuesday proposed requiring federal employees to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) aimed at preventing the sharing of confidential information with journalists. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the human resources office for the U.S. government, released a draft NDA that would allow the administration to pursue civil and criminal penalties against employees who violate the agreement.

Details of the Proposed NDA

According to the draft, the government would be entitled to any “royalties” that employees receive from disclosing information that breaches the NDA. The OPM did not provide further clarification on the proposal. An OPM spokesperson, McLaurine Pinover, stated, “This move is rooted in concerns that unauthorized disclosures of sensitive government information are disrupting agency operations and eroding trust across government.”

Under the proposed agreement, former government employees would need “written permission from an authorized agency official” to speak to journalists about information deemed “confidential” after leaving their positions. Violating this rule could result in civil and criminal penalties.

Legal Protections for Whistleblowers

It is important to note that federal law prohibits retaliation against workers who disclose fraud, abuse, and misconduct to internal watchdogs and Congress. The NDA would not apply to these disclosures, according to the draft agreement. However, critics argue that the NDA could create a chilling effect on whistleblowers.

Trump’s Ongoing War on the Press

Since resuming office, Trump has intensified his campaign against media outlets and journalists he perceives as critical. He has labeled coverage as “fake news,” filed lawsuits against various news organizations, and personally attacked journalists. His administration has also restricted access for reporters, including banning the Associated Press from the White House press pool and limiting access at the Pentagon.

Criticism from Labor Leaders

Steve Lenkart, executive director of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), criticized the administration’s use of NDAs, stating, “The Trump administration has long used nondisclosures and other similar agreements to pressure federal workers into silence.” He noted that last year, the Pentagon considered using NDAs and polygraph tests to prevent leaks to the press and internal dissent.

Lenkart further emphasized that “NDAs do not supersede federal law or the constitution. Federal employees retain protected rights to communicate with Congress, inspectors general, and, in many circumstances, the press regarding government misconduct and matters related to their employment.”

Concerns Over Accountability

Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, expressed alarm over the proposed NDA, calling it an attempt to “purge the civil service of nonpartisan career employees and replace them with loyalists who won’t speak out against waste, fraud, and abuse.” He asserted, “Federal employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they accept federal employment, and the public has a right to know about this administration’s abuses.”

Conclusion

The proposed nondisclosure agreements represent a significant shift in how the Trump administration seeks to control the flow of information from federal employees to the public. As concerns mount over transparency and accountability, the implications of such agreements could have lasting effects on whistleblower protections and the relationship between government employees and the press. The public’s right to know about government actions remains a critical issue as this proposal unfolds.

Reuters contributed reporting.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/26/federal-workers-ndas

Congressional Black Caucus urges companies to oppose Republican redistricting

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-05-26 12:29:00 — www.pbs.org

Congressional Black Caucus Urges Corporations to Oppose Redistricting Efforts

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has called on major corporations across the U.S. to take a stand against redistricting efforts by Republican-led states that threaten to eliminate majority-Black U.S. House districts. In a letter sent to over 250 companies, CBC members described these redistricting efforts as “coordinated efforts to silence Black voices at the ballot box.”

Background on Corporate Involvement

Several of the companies receiving the letter had previously co-signed a message to Congress five years ago, urging lawmakers to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, a Democratic proposal aimed at restoring and updating the Voting Rights Act. This coalition, known as Business for Voting Rights, included influential companies such as Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Tesla, Salesforce, Target, PayPal, Intel, and Starbucks.

Recent Developments

The CBC’s letter is part of a broader effort to rally support against the redrawing of legislative maps that could dilute Black political representation. Following a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that weakened a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, several states have moved to eliminate congressional districts represented by Black Democratic lawmakers. “Corporations that have profited from Black consumers, relied on Black workers, and amassed wealth in part from Black communities cannot look away while Black political power is dismantled in plain sight,” said Rep. Yvette Clarke, chair of the CBC.

Corporate Accountability

Clarke emphasized that the letter serves to “put corporate America on notice,” while clarifying that the caucus does not seek an adversarial relationship with these companies. The CBC has also called for Black athletes to boycott public universities in states that are gerrymandering their congressional maps to eliminate districts held by Black lawmakers.

As the CBC seeks to mobilize support, it remains unclear how the targeted companies will respond. The Associated Press reached out to dozens of companies that received the letter but has yet to receive any responses. The CBC’s letter highlights a growing frustration with corporate America, noting that many companies that pledged support for racial equity initiatives following the murder of George Floyd now face a “defining test” of their commitments.

Political Context

Democratic Rep. Steven Horsford of Nevada remarked on the current political landscape, stating, “We understand who the occupant in the White House is and the reality of Republicans being in charge. But what corporate America also understands is that there will be a shift at some point.” The letter calls for companies to publicly condemn the redistricting plans, meet with CBC members to discuss their role in protecting voting rights, and disclose their political donations to Republican politicians involved in redistricting efforts.

Trump’s Role in Redistricting

President Donald Trump played a significant role in initiating the unusual mid-decade round of congressional redistricting by pushing Texas lawmakers to redraw their maps to add Republican seats. While Democratic-led California responded, the majority of redistricting efforts have been concentrated in Republican states, particularly as the party aims to maintain its majority in the U.S. House during the upcoming midterm elections. The Supreme Court’s recent decision has further empowered Republican states to redraw congressional maps that previously protected minority communities.

Conclusion

The CBC’s call to action represents a critical moment for corporate America, as lawmakers demand accountability and support for voting rights. As the fight against gerrymandering intensifies, the response from major corporations will be closely watched, determining whether their previous commitments to racial equity were genuine or merely convenient. “This is about power, who holds it and what it’s used for,” Horsford stated. “When you’re diluting Black economic and political power, we need to know where these companies stand in this moment, and what side of history they’re on.”

A free press is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. Support trusted journalism and civil dialogue. Donate now.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/congressional-black-caucus-urges-companies-to-oppose-republican-redistricting