IEA says Iran war will keep the global natural gas market tight for two years

April 24, 2026 1:39 PM EDT / CBS News

By Megan Cerullo

Megan Cerullo is a New York-based reporter for CBS MoneyWatch covering small business, workplace, health care, consumer spending and personal finance topics. She regularly appears on CBS News 24/7 to discuss her reporting.

Read Full Bio

The implications of the Iran war on energy markets will extend well beyond this year, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) on Friday.

The conflict in the Middle East, now in its second month, is expected to crimp global natural gas supplies for two years as damage to liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities in Qatar disrupts supply, the IEA predicts.

The war has closed the Strait of Hormuz, effectively cutting off one-fifth of global oil and LNG supplies. IEA head Fatih Birol on Tuesday called the disruption “the biggest crisis in history” in an interview with France Inter radio.

Iranian strikes on Ras Laffan Industrial City, a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Qatar, last month reduced its LNG capacity by 17%, Qatar’s energy minister said. It could take up to five years to repair the damage, the energy minister added.

“Beyond the immediate disruption, the crisis is expected to have implications for the medium-term outlook. Damage to LNG liquefaction infrastructure in Qatar is set to reduce projected supply growth and delay the impact of the anticipated global LNG expansion wave by at least two years,” the IEA said in its quarterly report on Friday.

Short-term supply losses, combined with slower capacity growth, could lead to a cumulative loss of 120 billion cubic meters of LNG supply through 2030, the agency estimates.

“While new liquefaction projects in other regions are expected to offset these losses over time, the impact will prolong tight markets through 2026 and 2027,” IEA said in its report.

The group noted that natural gas demand fell in March, in part due to higher commodity prices and demand-side policy measures.

“A number of Asian countries are undertaking demand-side and fuel-switching measures to reduce the use of natural gas,” IEA said. “The duration of the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz is a key uncertainty that will affect global gas demand in 2026.”

Edited by Aimee Picchi

节点运行失败

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/farmers-facing-harsh-fuel-prices-as-iran-war-disrupts-oil-shipments/

King Charles to attend 9/11 event with New York Mayor Mamdani

2026-04-24T19:22:21.997Z / Reuters

By Jasper Ward

April 24, 2026 7:22 PM UTC Updated 48 mins ago

节点运行失败

Item 1 of 2 Britain’s King Charles looks on as he meets with frontline workers and members from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Services and Police Scotland who assisted in managing the fire at Glasgow Central Station, in March this year, at Dumfries House, Ayrshire. Wednesday April 22, 2026. Jane Barlow/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

[1/2]Britain’s King Charles looks on as he meets with frontline workers and members from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Services and Police Scotland who assisted in managing the fire at Glasgow Central Station, in March this year, at Dumfries House, Ayrshire. Wednesday April 22, 2026. Jane… Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tabRead more

WASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) – New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani will participate in a 9/11 memorial wreath-laying ceremony ​with Britain’s King Charles when he visits next week, ‌his office said on Friday.

The memorial marks the site of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the Twin Towers, the deadliest ​attack on the United States. Some 67 Britons were ​among at least 2,606 people who died after ⁠militant Islamists of al Qaeda crashed hijacked jetliners into ​the World Trade Center buildings.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The mayor’s press secretary Joe ​Calvello said King Charles and Mamdani will not meet privately.

The British monarch is slated to make stops in Washington, D.C., New York ​and Virginia during his April 27 to April 30 ​state visit.

During the trip, King Charles will deliver a joint address ‌before ⁠the U.S. Congress, the first by a British monarch since Queen Elizabeth II spoke in 1991.

U.S. President Donald Trump will meet privately with King Charles, and host a ​state banquet for ​the king ⁠and his wife, Queen Camilla.

The trip comes amid strained U.S. relations with the ​United Kingdom. Trump told the BBC on ​Thursday that ⁠he believes King Charles could help repair Washington’s relationship with London.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

“I know him well, I’ve known him for years. ⁠He’s ​a brave man, and he’s a ​great man. They would absolutely be a positive,” Trump said.

Reporting by Jasper ​Ward in Washington; Editing by Michelle Nichols and Lisa Shumaker

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Texas Dem James Talarico rips ‘un-Christian’ court decision on what’s allowed in classrooms

April 24, 2026 1:08pm EDT / Fox News

Texas Democrat James Talarico slammed a court ruling this week allowing Texas to enforce a law requiring classrooms to display the 10 Commandments, calling it a “deeply un-Christian decision.”

He decried “Christian nationalism,” saying, “I’m a Christian, but I know that the most dangerous form of government is theocracy.”

Talarico, a Democratic Texas state representative, is running to flip one of Texas’ Senate seats blue for the first time in decades. Democrats believe Talarico has a real shot at defeating either incumbent GOP Sen. John Cornyn or current state Attorney General Ken Paxton. A Talarico victory would be devastating to the GOP’s hopes of retaining or expanding its Senate majority this November.

Speaking on CNN this week, Talarico condemned the decision by the federal Fifth Circuit Court. He suggested the law requiring the 10 Commandments to be displayed poses an affront to individuals in Texas who are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, agnostic and atheist.

TEXAS AG PAXTON SUES DEM FUNDRAISING PLATFORM ACTBLUE, ALLEGING ‘FRAUDULENT AND FOREIGN DONATIONS’

Texas state Rep. James Talarico, a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, called a ruling allowing a Texas law requiring the 10 Commandments be displayed in schools “deeply un-Christian.”(Brandon Bell/Getty Images; Mike Simons/Getty Images)

“I don’t want anyone forcing their religion down my throat, and I certainly don’t want the government forcing a religion down my throat. So why would I do that to any of my neighbors?” he told CNN. “I think this is an unconstitutional decision, I also think this is a deeply un-Christian decision, because we are supposed to be loving all of our neighbors, particularly our neighbors of other faiths.”

In a 9–8 ruling on Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Texas law requiring public schools across the state to display the Ten Commandments. The court ruled the law does not violate either the Constitution’s Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause.

The court’s majority opinion stated that “because Plaintiffs fail to show that [Texas law] S.B. 10 substantially burdens their right to religious exercise, their Free Exercise claims must be dismissed.”

However, Talarico, who is a Presbyterian seminarian in addition to a former middle school teacher, asserted that the law runs afoul of the Christian imperative to love God and love neighbor.

“My faith teaches me to love my neighbor as myself. Not just my neighbors who look like me, not just my neighbors who vote like me, not just my neighbors who pray like me. I’m called to love all of my neighbors the way I love myself. That includes my Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, agnostic and atheist neighbors,” he said.

He also decried what he referred to as “Christian nationalism,” saying, “the only thing worse than a tyrant is a tyrant who thinks they’re on a mission from God.”

WATCH: HOUSTON FACES $110M HIT AS TEXAS GOV LAYS DOWN LAW ON ‘SANCTUARY’ POLICIES

A copy of the Ten Commandments is displayed in a classroom at Bagdad Elementary School in Leander, Texas, on Nov. 19, 2025, following a state law requiring school districts to post them in classrooms.(Jay Janner/The Austin American-Statesman/Getty Images)

As a member of the Texas House of Representatives, Talarico has opposed the 10 Commandments bill as “idolatrous” for years.

While speaking on CNN, he ripped into Paxton for praising the ruling. Smiling, he said, “I’m not sure that Ken Paxton is in a place to lecture us on moral values.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Paxton for comment.

Paxton, who is currently locked in a bitter primary runoff with Cornyn, had called the ruling a “major victory for Texas and our moral values.”

He said the 10 Commandments “have had a profound impact on our nation, and it’s important that students learn from them every single day,” adding, “My office was proud to defend SB 10 and successfully ensure that the Ten Commandments will be displayed in classrooms across Texas.”

After Talarico’s dig, Paxton responded on X, writing, “James Talarico says God commands us to believe in six genders, support late-term abortion, and abuse children by ‘transitioning’ them. He’s completely and totally morally bankrupt.”

GOP ZEROS IN ON SOUTH TEXAS DEM WHO URGED TRUMP TO ‘ALLOW PEOPLE TO CROSS FREELY’

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, are heading to a runoff in Texas, extending their primary battle until late May.(Nathan Posner/Anadolu/Getty Images and Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Paxton was not the only one to slam Talarico’s take on the ruling. Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet posted on X, “Imagine being a Christian who goes on CNN to condemn putting the Ten Commandments in schools. Imagine James Talarico.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

In response, Talarico doubled down, telling Fox News Digital, “Jesus taught us to love God and love neighbor, because there is no love of God without love of neighbor. My faith teaches me to love my neighbor as myself. I don’t want the government forcing a religion down my throat.”

Talarico added that “the separation of church and state is a sacred boundary that doesn’t just benefit the state — it also benefits the church, because when the church gets too cozy with political power, it loses its prophetic voice.”

A spokesperson for Cornyn responded to Fox News Digital’s request for comment by saying, “We support the ruling.”

Peter Pinedo is a politics writer for Fox News Digital.

Trader Joe’s customers sue over coffee’s caffeine levels

April 24, 2026 3:27 PM EDT / CBS News

By Megan Cerullo

Megan Cerullo is a New York-based reporter for CBS MoneyWatch covering small business, workplace, health care, consumer spending and personal finance topics. She regularly appears on CBS News 24/7 to discuss her reporting.

Read Full Bio

Some Trader Joe’s coffee drinkers are angry they didn’t get their caffeine fix, according to a new lawsuit filed against the retailer.

Customers allege in a class-action lawsuit filed in California on Thursday that Trader Joe’s deceptively advertised its French Roast Low Acid whole bean coffee, leading them to believe it contained more caffeine than it did.

Four plaintiffs who purchased the Trader Joe’s coffee product, sold at the retailer’s stores across the country, allege the grocer failed to disclose that the product contained less caffeine than typical coffee products.

Plaintiffs allege Trader Joe’s falsely advertised its coffee by not indicating low caffeine content. Trader Joe’s

It is common practice, attorneys for the plaintiffs claim, to indicate a coffee product’s caffeine content only when “some process is used to reduce the amount of caffeine contained therein.”

“For example, full caffeinated coffee does not have any special labeling denoting that it is fully caffeinated, but ‘decaf’ and ‘half-caff’ coffees are labelled as such,” the suit states.

While testing shows that the French Roast Low Acid coffee contained half the caffeine of a regular blend, it was not labeled accordingly, the suit claims, leading consumers to “purchase the product believing that it is fully caffeinated when it is not.”

Trader Joe’s did not immediately respond to CBS News’ request for comment on the lawsuit.

Seeking damages

The suit claims that consumers rely on caffeine to fuel their work and personal lives.

“It is so common that it is now cliché that coffee drinkers depend on the caffeine contained therein to provide them with the energy they need to get through the day. Accordingly, the amount of caffeine in a coffee blend affects a consumer’s purchasing decision,” the suit states.

A low-caffeine drink would not suffice for regular coffee drinkers, it adds. If they did choose to purchase a “half-caff” product, they would pay less for it, the lawsuit states.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages and for Trader Joe’s to stop selling the product through misleading marketing, according to the lawsuit.

Edited by Aimee Picchi

US legal adviser says Iran war justified by Tehran’s ‘aggression’ over decades

2026-04-24T17:47:02.951Z / Reuters

By Simon Lewis and Patricia Zengerle

April 24, 2026 5:47 PM UTC Updated 9 mins ago

节点运行失败

U.S. President Donald Trump points as he delivers a speech during the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) annual fundraising dinner in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 25, 2026. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno

• Summary

• State Department legal adviser defends strikes as collective self-defense for US, Israel
• More than 100 international law experts have said US action clearly violates UN Charter
• Polls show Americans blame Trump for fuel price surge; war remains unpopular

WASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) – The U.S. State Department’s top lawyer has argued that President Donald Trump’s war with Iran was launched in self-defense and to defend U.S. ally ​Israel, arguing the bombing campaign was not the start of a new war but the continuation of an ongoing conflict.

State Department Legal Adviser Reed Rubinstein made the arguments ‌in a statement released days before a May 1 deadline for the Trump administration to obtain approval for the war from Congress under the 1973 War Powers Act or move to end it.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The U.S. and Israel began airstrikes on Iran on February 28, killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and much of the country’s leadership in the initial attacks. Trump said at the time the strikes, which happened just days after inconclusive talks between U.S. and Iranian negotiators, were aimed at destroying ​Iranian missiles and annihilating its navy and preventing Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Trump also urged Iranians to overthrow their government.

Many legal experts say the attacks were unjustified under the United Nations ​Charter, which states that member states must refrain from using force or the threat of force against other states except when force is authorized by the ⁠U.N. Security Council or used in self-defense.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The U.S. was “engaged in this conflict at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally, as well as in the exercise of the United ​States’ own inherent right of self-defense,” Rubinstein said, citing what he called “Iran’s malign aggression over decades” since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, including attacks by Iranian proxies on U.S. forces and Israel, Iranian missile strikes against ​Israel in 2024 and Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

“In truth, the United States is acting well within the recognized contours of international law relating to the use of force and self-defense,” he added.

Iran has long denied accusations by Western powers that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

The statement, entitled “Operation Epic Fury and International Law,” was posted on the State Department’s website on Tuesday but, unlike most of the department’s statements, it was not sent to the media or published on official ​social media channels.

Iran responded to the U.S. and Israeli attacks by launching missiles and drones against U.S. targets, its Middle East neighbors and shipping, snarling the vital Strait of Hormuz waterway. The war, which has ​sparked an energy shock and concerns about wider economic fallout, has been paused since an April 8 ceasefire.

Opinion polls show the war is unpopular with Americans, who have seen the prices of fuel, food and other products jump during ‌the past eight ⁠weeks. Reuters/Ipsos poll results released on Friday showed a clear majority of Americans blame Trump for surging gasoline prices, which are weighing on his Republican Party ahead of the midterm elections in November.

LEGAL CONCERNS

More than 100 international law experts published a letter this month saying the initiation of the conflict was “a clear violation” of the U.N. charter. “Despite the Trump administration’s varied and sometimes conflicting claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat that could ground a self-defense claim,” they wrote, citing actions including the bombing of a girls’ school that investigators believe was likely a U.S. strike, the killings of political leaders unconnected to the ​military and threats against Iran’s civilian infrastructure.

Rubinstein concluded ​the campaign that began in late February was “part ⁠of an armed conflict with Iran that has been ongoing for years” and said it was unnecessary to assess whether an Iranian attack on the U.S. or an ally was imminent.

“The U.S. has acted well within its international law obligations with respect to its use of force since operations began in late February,” ​Rubinstein said.

Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer now at the International Crisis Group, said in an analysis published by Just Security that Rubinstein’s statement was “both ​legally unpersuasive and analytically confused,” ⁠adding that “this defective and overly permissive justification risks further eroding legal constraints on the use of force.”

Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called it a “late and weak legal justification.” In a statement, he said, “The President should comply with domestic and international law and end his war of choice.”

Congressional aides said Rubinstein’s statement was issued by the Trump administration likely to get ahead of a May 1 ⁠deadline to ask ​Congress to authorize the war. The War Powers Act says the U.S. president must end any ongoing conflict after 60 days ​unless he obtains that authorization to continue. A president can obtain a 30-day extension if he certifies in writing, to Congress, that the continuing use of armed force is necessary.

Democrats, who are in the minority in both chambers of Congress, have tried repeatedly ​since the war began to pass resolutions ending the conflict until Trump obtains congressional approval, but almost all Republicans have voted to block them.

Reporting by Simon Lewis and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Paul Simao, Rod Nickel

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Trump DOJ jumps into Musk xAI court battle as diversity fight heats up

April 24, 2026 2:48pm EDT / Fox News

The lawsuit follows Colorado’s string of Supreme Court defeats in culture war cases over speech and religious freedoms

By Ashley Oliver Fox News

The Department of Justice joined forces with Elon Musk on Friday by backing a lawsuit his xAI company brought against Colorado alleging a state law regulating artificial intelligence developers was a masked effort to force them to adopt diversity, equity and inclusion on their platforms.

DOJ Civil Rights Division head Harmeet Dhillon said DOJ’s intervention was the department’s first constitutional challenge in an AI case.

Colorado faces allegations from the DOJ and xAI that its state law, set to take effect in June, violates the First and 14th amendments by forcing AI developers to inadvertently discriminate, an allegation familiar to Colorado, which has faced a string of legal losses in other high-profile culture war cases in recent years.

“We join @xai’s landmark suit, and stand against woke DEI standards being imposed by Colorado,” Dhillon said.

COLORADO’S LATEST SUPREME COURT LOSS ADDS TO GROWING STRING OF CULTURE WAR DEFEATS

Elon Musk receives a golden key from President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., on May 30, 2025.(Nathan Howard/Reuters)

The lawsuit arose from a controversial consumer protection bill the Colorado legislature passed in 2024 that required “high-risk” developers like xAI, which built the popular platform Grok, to exercise “reasonable care” to protect consumers from “algorithmic discrimination,” saying AI tools must not result in discrimination based on protected classes in the state, such as race and religion. Musk founded xAI in 2023.

The Colorado law also targeted entities that deploy the AI platforms, like hospitals or banks, saying the law was intended to make sure consumers in those areas were treated fairly.

Democratic Gov. Jared Polis reluctantly signed the bill into law in 2024 but has raised concerns over whether it would alienate tech innovators in his state because of the slate of burdensome regulations it imposed on them. Fox News Digital reached out to Polis’ office for comment on DOJ’s intervention in the lawsuit.

The DOJ lawyers argued in their lawsuit that Colorado’s bill actually “fosters further discrimination,” citing language in the bill that allowed AI developers to favor certain classes of people in their AI tools “to increase diversity or redress historical discrimination.”

LEFT-LEANING ACTRESS NATASHA LYONNE LEADING EFFORTS TO LOBBY TRUMP ADMIN ON AI REGULATION

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis speaks to members of the media in the spin room after the first vice presidential debate at the CBS Broadcast Center in New York on Oct. 1, 2024.(Al Drago/Bloomberg)

The law “jeopardizes the United States’ position as the global AI leader by requiring AI systems to incorporate discriminatory ideology that prioritizes preferred demographic characteristics and outcomes over accurate and merit-based outputs,” government lawyers wrote.

The DOJ’s lawsuit focused on what it alleged were equal protection violations, while Musk’s xAI lawsuit alleged numerous violations, including unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Lawyers for xAI contended in their complaint, brought earlier this month, that the law would force AI developers to output “progressive ideology.”

“By requiring ‘developers’ and ‘deployers’ to differentiate between discrimination that Colorado disfavors and discrimination that Colorado favors, SB24-205 compels Plaintiff xAI — a ‘developer’ under the law — to alter Grok, forcing Grok’s output on certain State-selected subjects to conform to a controversial, highly politicized viewpoint,” xAI lawyers wrote.

The Grok application appears on a smartphone screen in Athens, Greece, on Oct. 2, 2025.(Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto)

One law firm said Colorado would become a “national test case” for AI consumer protection, saying it was the first state to pass such a law, suggesting the state would once again become a case study on how far it could push constitutional bounds.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, signed into law by Polis in 2019, violated the First Amendment because it only restricted certain types of speech, in this case talk therapy when the therapy aimed to prevent minors from embracing being transgender or gay.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

That ruling followed a broad free speech decision in 303 Creative related to a website designer’s right to deny creating a wedding page for a gay couple based on religious beliefs and a narrower 2018 decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

The libertarian CATO Institute observed a trend in Colorado, citing the trio of recent landmark Supreme Court cases.

“This law will inevitably result in developers restricting lawful speech from their AIs in the name of compliance, especially given Colorado’s view of what constitutes harmful discrimination,” CATO fellow David Inserra wrote.

“And Colorado clearly has strong views on what kinds of speech are harmful and discriminatory, as seen in its multiple losses at the Supreme Court.”

Fox News Digital reached out to an xAI attorney on Friday.

Ashley Oliver is a reporter for Fox News Digital and FOX Business, covering the Justice Department and legal affairs. Email story tips to ashley.oliver@fox.com.

Justice Department announces it’s readopting the firing squad as a means of execution

April 24, 2026 12:02pm EDT / Fox News

The DOJ also plans to streamline internal processes to expedite death penalty cases and reduce lengthy appeals

By Robert McGreevy , Jake Gibson Fox News

Fox News Flash top headlines for April 24

Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what’s clicking on FoxNews.com.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

Listen to this article

1 min

The Department of Justice on Friday directed the Bureau of Prisons to expand death penalty protocols to include pentobarbital injections and firing squads as part of broader actions to strengthen the federal death penalty.

“Today, the Department of Justice acted to restore its solemn duty to seek, obtain, and implement lawful capital sentences — clearing the way for the Department to carry out executions once death-sentenced inmates have exhausted their appeals,” the DOJ memo obtained by Fox News read.

“Among the actions taken are readopting the lethal injection protocol utilized during the first Trump Administration, expanding the protocol to include additional manners of execution such as the firing squad, and streamlining internal processes to expedite death penalty cases,” the memo read.

In addition to recommending the new methods of execution, the DOJ is also directing BOP to look into expanding the federal death row and constructing additional execution facilities.

HOW TRUMP COULD RESTORE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN WASHINGTON AMID CRIME CRACKDOWN

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche spoke during a news conference at the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice building in Washington, D.C., on April 7, 2026. He discussed the department’s anti-fraud efforts and announced the creation of a National Fraud Enforcement Division.(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The DOJ also plans to consider a rule that will help states to streamline federal habeas review of capital cases which, if adopted, the DOJ says will reduce the period between conviction and execution in state capital cases by years. Death row inmates can often wait decades after receiving their sentence to face execution.

On President Donald Trump’s first day of his second term, he issued an executive order “to ensure that the laws that authorize capital punishment are respected and faithfully implemented.”

In 2025 the Trump administration rescinded a moratorium on federal executions instituted by former President Joe Biden’s DOJ.

Biden also commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 death row inmates in December 2024, a move widely condemned by Republicans as dangerous but praised by Democrats as an act of justice and mercy.

President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, March 31, 2026.(Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

POTENTIAL 2028 DEM HOPEFUL FOLLOWS BIDEN LEAD, COMMUTES 15 DEATH-ROW SENTENCES ON FINAL DAY AS GOVERNOR

The DOJ’s Friday memo slammed the Biden administration. “The prior administration failed in its duty to protect the American people by refusing to pursue and carry out the ultimate punishment against the most dangerous criminals, including terrorists, child murderers, and cop killers,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote.

The federal government has never executed a person by firing squad, though some states still use firing squads to execute death row inmates at the state level. South Carolina carried out three firing squad executions in 2025.

The state’s death chamber in Columbia, S.C. with the electric chair, right, and a firing squad chair, left.(South Carolina Department of Corrections via AP)

Pentobarbital is a central nervous system suppressant that many states use as a fallback to the standard three-drug cocktail for lethal injections. The Biden administration barred its use, arguing that it caused “unnecessary pain and suffering.” The DOJ, however, claimed its use is in line with the 8th amendment, which states that cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“These steps are critical to deterring the most barbaric crimes, delivering justice for victims, and providing long-overdue closure to surviving loved ones,” the DOJ memo read.

DOJ reinstates firing squads, pentobarbital for federal executions

April 24, 2026 / 1:01 PM EDT / CBS News

By

Jacob Rosen Justice Department Reporter
Jake Rosen is a reporter covering the Department of Justice. He was previously a campaign digital reporter covering President Trump’s 2024 campaign and also served as an associate producer for “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”

Read Full Bio

The Justice Department announced on Friday that it would reimplement lethal injection and firing squads as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to “strengthen” the federal death penalty.

“Among the actions taken are readopting the lethal injection protocol utilized during the first Trump Administration, expanding the protocol to include additional manners of execution such as the firing squad, and streamlining internal processes to expedite death penalty cases,” the Justice Department said in a press release.

The department went on to say these measures would be “critical to deterring the most barbaric crimes, delivering justice for victims, and providing long-overdue closure to surviving loved ones.”

President Trump, on the first day of his second administration, signed an executive order directing the death penalty to be pursued “for all crimes of a severity demanding its use,” and demanded the attorney general seek the death penalty in cases involving the murder of a law enforcement officer and capital crimes committed by illegal immigrants present in the U.S.

During his first term, Mr. Trump restarted federal executions after nearly a 20-year pause. In 2021, President Joe Biden instituted a moratorium on executions so it could review policies and procedures.

At the end of his term, Biden granted clemency to 37 of the 40 federal inmates facing death sentences, commuting their sentences to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The three inmates who didn’t receive clemency were the man convicted in the 2018 Tree of Life Synagogue shooting, the gunman who carried out a mass shooting in 2015 at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, and the surviving 2013 Boston Marathon bomber.

In February 2025, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi lifted the federal moratorium on the death penalty that had been implemented by the Biden administration and ordered federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in appropriate cases.

She instructed federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in the ongoing criminal trial of Luigi Mangione, who is accused of killing the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, in 2024. In January, a federal judge in New York dismissed the federal firearms charges that would have made Mangione eligible for the death penalty.

Soon after Todd Blanche was elevated from the No. 2 job at DOJ to acting attorney general after Bondi’s ouster, he authorized the top federal prosecutor in California to seek the death penalty for three alleged MS-13 members charged with killing a victim who was cooperating with authorities.

“The prior administration failed in its duty to protect the American people by refusing to pursue and carry out the ultimate punishment against the most dangerous criminals, including terrorists, child murderers, and cop killers,” Blanche said in a statement. “

The department also published a report criticizing the Biden Justice Department for causing “untold harm to the public,” for its steps to “weaken, delay and dismantle the death penalty.” The report said that in the current Justice Department’s view, the use of pentobarbital, the drug used for executions by injection, is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment.”

US to possibly revoke citizenship for hundreds of foreign-born Americans, NBC reports

April 24, 2026 7:14 PM UTC Updated 45 mins ago / By Reuters

节点运行失败

A U.S. Justice Department logo or seal showing Justice Department headquarters, known as “Main Justice,” is seen behind the podium in the Department’s headquarters briefing room before a news conference with the Attorney General in Washington, January 24, 2023. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

WASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department is targeting at least 300 foreign-born Americans and could revoke their citizenship, NBC News reported on Friday.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Reporting by Christian Martinez, Katharine Jackson; edting by Michelle Nichols

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

By

Melissa Quinn,
Melissa Quinn Senior Reporter, Politics

Melissa Quinn is a senior reporter for CBSNews.com, where she covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.

Read Full Bio

Melissa Quinn,
Jacob Rosen

Jacob Rosen Justice Department Reporter

Jake Rosen is a reporter covering the Department of Justice. He was previously a campaign digital reporter covering President Trump’s 2024 campaign and also served as an associate producer for “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”

Read Full Bio

Jacob Rosen

Updated on: April 24, 2026 / 2:24 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — A federal appeals court on Friday blocked President Trump’s directive suspending access to asylum and other legal protections for migrants unlawfully crossing the southern border.

A divided panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that federal immigration law does not allow the president to deport migrants under new summary removal proceedings implemented by the Trump administration or to suspend their right to apply for asylum.

Judge J. Michelle Childs authored the decision for the two-judge majority. She was joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard. Judge Justin Walker concurred in part but dissented from the court’s conclusion on the legality of Mr. Trump’s directive to effectively close the asylum system at the U.S.-Mexico border.

“We conclude that the [Immigration and Nationality Act’s] text, structure, and history make clear that in supplying power to suspend entry by Presidential proclamation, Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” Childs, a Biden appointee, wrote for the majority.

“The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections,” she added.

Walker, appointed by Mr. Trump in his first term, agreed with his colleagues’ finding that the executive branch cannot strip migrants of access to procedures that protect them from being removed to countries where they would likely be persecuted or tortured. But he said it is within the president’s lawful discretion to deny all asylum applications.

Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the ACLU, which challenged the policy, said in a statement that the decision “will potentially save the lives of thousands of people fleeing grave danger who were denied even a hearing under the Trump administration’s horrific asylum ban.”

The Trump administration can ask the full D.C. Circuit to review the decision or appeal to the Supreme Court.

The case is one of many aspects of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda that has faced legal challenges. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump promised to execute mass deportations if elected and has implemented policies in his second term in pursuit of that aim.

On Mr. Trump’s first day back in office, he directed his administration to suspend the asylum process for millions of people seeking to come to the U.S. due to potential torture or persecution in their native countries.

In his executive order, Mr. Trump said that there was an “invasion” into the U.S. and as a result, he was “suspending the physical entry” of undocumented migrants into the country until he determined “that the invasion has concluded.”

On the heels of that directive, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance informing immigration authorities at the southern border that individuals who cross between ports of entry are “not permitted to apply for asylum.” The department also declared that people subject to Mr. Trump’s executive order could be summarily removed under one of two new processes, “direct repatriation” or “expedited removal,” without being allowed to request asylum.

Under the guidance, asylum officers were told not to ask specific questions about whether a migrant has a credible fear of persecution or torture.

The case before the D.C. Circuit arose in February 2025, when a group of immigrant rights’ groups filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to block the asylum pathway for migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.

They argued that the president had exceeded his authority through the new summary removal procedures and that his proclamation and the Homeland Security Department’s guidance violated the Immigration Nationality Act.

In July, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss certified as a class all migrants subject to Mr. Trump’s directive who are or will be in the U.S. He also sided with the plaintiffs and asylum seekers, finding that neither the Immigration and Nationality Act or Constitution give Mr. Trump the “sweeping authority asserted” in the proclamation and that an “appeal to necessity cannot fill that void.”

The Justice Department appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which agreed to narrow portions of the lower court’s decision while proceedings before the appeals court continued. That panel did, however, limit the president’s efforts to close the asylum system at the southern border.

In its decision Friday, the D.C. Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s decision in favor of the plaintiffs.

“The INA does not allow the President to remove Plaintiffs under summary removal procedures of his own making. Nor does it allow the Executive to suspend Plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum, deny Plaintiffs’ access to withholding of removal under the INA, or curtail mandatory procedures for adjudicating Plaintiffs’ Convention Against Torture claims,” Childs wrote.

The Trump administration had argued that immigration law authorizes the president to restrict migrants subject to his directive from invoking the right to apply for asylum, but the judges in the majority disagreed.

“To the contrary, barring foreign individuals who are physically present in the United States from applying for asylum and, if they make the statutory showing that they are eligible, from being considered to receive it cannot be squared with the statute,” Childs said.

She said that numerous sources, including from the courts and the executive branch, point to the conclusion that Congress enacted the asylum statute, with narrow exceptions, to grant all foreign nationals in the U.S. the right to apply for asylum and have their applications adjudicated.

“If the Government wishes to modify this carefully structured and intricate system, it must present those arguments to the only branch of government able to amend the INA: Congress,” Childs wrote.

Camilo Montoya-Galvez contributed to this report.