分类： 未分类

Trump moves to strip tax-exempt status from schools that consider race

September 3, 2026 10:51 PM UTC Updated 1 hour ago / Reuters

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks while hosting a dinner in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 2, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

NEW YORK, Sept 3 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s administration on Thursday proposed new regulations that would strip schools of tax-exempt status if they offer students that consider race in admissions or programs.

The ​rules proposed by the U.S. Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service are the ‌latest salvo in the administration’s campaign to eradicate diversity programs and end what officials say is discrimination against white students in favor of students of color.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Civil rights advocates say diversity practices help address historic inequities for marginalized ethnic minorities ​who were legally discriminated against for decades.

The proposal, which is subject to a public comment ​period and would likely draw legal challenges if implemented, draws on recent U.S. ⁠Supreme Court rulings that limited how colleges and universities can consider race in admissions.

Treasury’s proposal ​would cover admissions, educational policies, scholarships and loans, athletics and “every other school-administered or school-supported program.” It would ​apply to programs that consider race “for any purpose,” including mitigating past racial discrimination.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

“Schools rebranding race-based preferences as equitable, inclusive, or diversity-enhancing does not change their discriminatory nature,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement.

The American Association of ​University Professors, which advocates for academic freedom and has sued the Trump administration to block funding ​cuts, said it is considering legal action in response to the proposal.

“This is not neutral enforcement of civil-rights law. ‌It ⁠is an affirmative attempt to turn civil-rights law against the very people it was enacted to protect,” AAUP President Todd Wolfson said in a statement. “For half a century, federal policy recognized that measures intended to dismantle entrenched racial exclusion are not equivalent to policies designed to preserve it.”

The Treasury estimated ​the change could affect ​as many as 18,000 ⁠schools at all education levels and 750,000 students who may qualify for race-based scholarships.

blob:https://www.reuters.com/3f5239ee-eb31-4fc2-848a-99234ce14dd8

The proposal would not bar private schools from maintaining a religious mission, ​curriculum or program, and religious schools could continue selecting students based on ​religious affiliation, ⁠according to a Treasury Department statement.

Treasury also said the proposal would not prevent schools from assisting disadvantaged students using race-neutral criteria such as income, geography or first-generation status.

The Trump administration has cracked down on diversity ⁠policies at ​colleges. Rights advocates say the crackdown threatens free speech, ​due process and academic freedom.

Trump has singled out Harvard University, the country’s oldest and richest university, in particular with funding freezes, investigations ​and threats to the school’s tax-exempt status.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Reporting by Jack Queen in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis

White House rips ‘activist’ Biden judge who upended Trump birthright citizenship order

2026-09-03 16:30 EDT / Fox News

Judge Deborah Boardman called the order ‘almost certainly unconstitutional’ under the 14th Amendment

By Elaine Mallon Fox News

Published September 3, 2026 4:30pm EDT

Judge blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship order

DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin discusses a federal judge blocking President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s response to ICE crackdowns and a recent emergency landing.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/80ba62e8-1224-426e-951a-27b41f71f072

Listen to this article

5 min

A Biden-appointed judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s latest executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship, setting up another high-profile legal battle over the scope of the 14th Amendment.

In a 35-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a preliminary injunction against the Oval Office’s Aug. 6 executive order, which was issued a month after the Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship in its ruling in Barbara v. Trump. The injunction is the first to halt Trump’s revised birthright citizenship order since the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship in June.

Boardman previously blocked Trump’s original birthright citizenship executive order before the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue.

Trump’s order sought to limit birthright citizenship for children whose parents are deemed alien enemies, including members of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and children whose foreign parents paid a surrogate in the U.S. to give birth, among several other restrictions. The executive order prompted Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration.

TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FIGHT COMES ROARING BACK WITH ‘INVADERS’ PLAY AFTER KAVANAUGH ROADMAP

Demonstrators gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in support of birthright citizenship, May 15, 2025.(Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty)

“The 2026 Executive Order is almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to the certified class for the simple reason that the Supreme Court in Barbara already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth,” Boardman wrote in her ruling. “This Court must, once again, preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the President’s most recent attempt to strip the right to citizenship from them.”

The White House rejected Boardman’s ruling as the work of an “activist judge appointed by Biden attempting to thwart President Trump’s commonsense agenda.”

“The birthright citizenship executive order is consistent with the holdings and analysis set forth by the Supreme Court,” Lauren Bis, White House spokeswoman, said in a statement.

In a 5-4 decision on the constitutional question of birthright citizenship, the high court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are “citizens at birth” under the 14th Amendment in Barbara v. Trump.

TRUMP’S TOUGHER ROUND-TWO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP STRATEGY HINGES ON KEY LEGAL DISTINCTION, EXPERTS SAY

Demonstrators hold up an anti-Trump sign outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2025.(Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images)

While the Supreme Court has acknowledged exceptions to birthright citizenship, such as children of foreign diplomats or children born during an enemy’s hostile occupation of U.S. soil, Boardman rejected Trump’s latest executive order targeting children born to alleged alien enemies. She agreed with the plaintiffs’ concerns over the Trump administration’s “broad view of who qualifies as an enemy.” The plaintiffs alleged that the Trump administration had “sometimes resting its conclusions on false or speculative allegations, or even tenuous markers like tattoos or family affiliations.”

Boardman pointed to two plaintiffs — Andrea, who fled an area of Mexico where a designated cartel operates and whose child’s father has a relative in the group, and Monica, a Venezuelan woman who fears her family could be wrongly linked to Tren de Aragua.

TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDERS TARGETING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, BIRTH TOURISM AFTER SUPREME COURT SETBACK

President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference at the White House, on June 27, 2025, following a Supreme Court ruling that limits the application of birthright citizenship.(Mehmet Eser/Middle East Images via AFP)

“Children whose parents may ‘rightly or wrongfully’ be deemed by the government to be alien enemies face a credible threat of “being denied or stripped of their birthright citizenship … even though they do not fall within a recognized exception to birthright citizenship,” Boardman wrote.

However, Abhi Kambli, a former Justice Department official, said Boardman was speculating on how the Trump administration could incorrectly bar someone from citizenship based upon being part of a foreign terrorist organization.

“Legally, where that falls short is that it’s a facial challenge to the entire executive order,” Kambli told Fox News Digital. “So, in legal terms, when something’s a facial challenge, you have to demonstrate that it’s unlawful in all of its applications, and not just the edge, the borderline cases.”

“She didn’t want to wade into the territory of whether that fits as an exception generally within Trump v. Barbara, but she said that based on how they’ve interpreted it in the past and in terms of what happened with Tren de Aragua and other organizations, she bought into plaintiff speculation that maybe they’ll get it wrong this time, and then that’ll affect their kids, and then that’s why it should get barred,” Kambli continued.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

Boardman used the First Circuit’s language to find that denying citizenship under the new executive order would cause irreparable harm — one of the requirements for issuing a preliminary injunction.

“The loss of birthright citizenship — even if temporary and later restored at the conclusion of litigation has cascading effects’ that will ‘very likely leave permanent scars’ on the child and their family,” the ruling stated.

Monica celebrated the preliminary injunction.

“During my pregnancy, I felt so much anxiety over the fact that my child could be born stateless,” Monica, said in a statement. “For now, my child and children like mine are protected and guaranteed U.S. citizenship. But I know this isn’t over. The threat to birthright citizenship is still out there. I’ll keep fighting for permanent protection for my child, and for every child born in this country.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“When it comes to attacking birthright citizenship, the Trump administration has lost before this court, lost before the Supreme Court, and lost again today,”Shana Khader, legal director at We Are CASA, said in a statement. “The White House must recognize it will not succeed in stripping children of their right to citizenship, evading binding court decisions or placing the president’s anti-immigrant agenda above the Constitution. We are very proud to continue this fight alongside the families who have endured more than a year of fear and uncertainty and still refuse to surrender their children’s constitutional rights.”

Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.

Reflecting Pool saga continues with another contractor hired to clean the algae

2026-09-03T22:01:00.655Z / CNN

In a months-long summer saga that does not appear to want to end, the Trump administration has hired yet another new company to help clean and maintain the Lincoln Reflecting Pool — adding more cost and more questions to the renovation project that was meant to be a showcase of the country’s 250th birthday.

The Department of Interior, which is overseeing the renovation project, will pay $2.7 million to American Ag Energy, a Massachusetts-based company that specializes in renewable energy technology, for repairs and maintenance of sewage and water purification systems at the pool, according to details of the government contract and the company’s owner.

The one-year contract, awarded last week, could be extended for five additional years and grow up to $8.8 million.

The Department of Interior did not follow up with CNN on questions about the new contract or how it would fit into the other work that has been done on the Reflecting Pool.

Richard Rosen, the CEO of American Ag Energy, told CNN that he learned about the algae problem from one of the directors of his company and later read a news report about it.

“I realized that I actually knew how to solve this problem,” Rosen said. He added, referring to NPS: “They want me to solve it the right way, okay, and they’re doing a very good job, trying to do the right thing and I will be very helpful to them.”

But the contract award comes with another twist, further adding to the drama around the renovation project.

Last year, Rosen was convicted of voter fraud, for casting ballots twice in the 2016 election — once in Massachusetts and the other time in New Hampshire. The conviction, for which Rosen faced a seven-day jail sentence along with losing his right to vote in New Hampshire, was overturned by the state supreme court earlier this year over what it ruled were incorrect evidentiary rulings by a superior court judge during his trial. Rosen said he’s in mediation with the New Hampshire attorney general’s office over the charges, which can be refiled after the case was remanded back to the Grafton County Superior Court.

CNN has reached out to the New Hampshire attorney general’s office for additional information.

Those details are just one part of the drama that has surrounded the renovation of an iconic DC landmark that has greeted tourists since the early 1920s.

A major concern has been the project’s cost, which has escalated over the course of the year.

The president initially estimated renovations to cost around $2 to $3 million but later revised the projection to “less than $20 million.”

As of this summer, with the newest contract factored in, the cost has surpassed $14 million.

Trump vowed to restore the landmark as part of his executive order to make the nation’s capital “safe and beautiful.” However, the renovation project has been plagued with issues from the start.

After the president rode in his motorcade across the drained pool in May to survey the site, the bottom — which had long been gray — was outfitted with a liner the color of “American flag blue. When it was later refilled, algae turned the pool green.

The administration deployed Greenwater Services, an Ohio-based company whose co-owner, J.J. Cafaro, is a longtime supporter and donor to Trump, to clean up the algae. Cafaro pleaded guilty in 2001 to conspiracy to bribe Rep. James Traficant Jr., an Ohio Democrat. The company’s executives said he is not involved in its day-to-day operations.

Under a $1.7 million contract, Greenwater used ozone nanobubbler technology to clean the reflecting pool water. But the problem remained. To make matters worse, the blue material at the bottom of the pool began peeling shortly after, a setback the president claimed was caused by vandals.

The saga heated up this summer when multiple people were arrested and charged with damaging the pool, an offense that, for most of them, would have meant a $1,000 fine and a maximum of 180 days in prison if found guilty.Olympian canoeist David Hearn, the most prominent of the group, faced as many as 10 years in prison after he was indicted in July for a felony charge of destruction of property. The Justice Department later dropped the criminal case against Hearn, with DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office acknowledging in a court filing that the Department of Interior’s renovation of the pool was “hasty and botched,” a conclusion that prompted Trump to criticize Pirro.

“I don’t know what she was thinking? To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. A few days later, the charges against the other defendants were also dropped.

With Trump continuing to lay blame on vandals, the task of removing the algae now falls to Rosen’s company.

Rosen told CNN that he and a few members of his team are now in the process of surveying the pool.

“They want me to solve it the right way, okay, and they’re doing a very good job, trying to do the right thing and I will be very helpful to them.”

Trump administration takes mail-in ballot fight to US Supreme Court

2026-09-03T20:24:38.886Z / Reuters

By Andrew Chung

September 3, 2026 8:24 PM UTC Updated 1 hour ago

A mail-in ballot, during the Pennsylvania primary election, is displayed in this illustration picture taken in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S., May 19, 2026. REUTERS/Hannah Beier/Illustration

• Postal service rule implements Trump’s mail-in ballot order
• Judge had temporarily blocked USPS mail-ballot rule
• Filing says rule prevents voter fraud, but such evidence is rare

Sept 3 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to ​let it enforce a new U.S. Postal Service rule tightening the use of mail-in ballots, moving swiftly after ‌a judge temporarily blocked the regulation ahead of November’s midterm elections.

In an emergency request, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to lift Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s order temporarily preventing the USPS from enforcing the new rule, which it adopted following an executive order by the Republican president to ​restrict mail-in ballots.

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The USPS regulation would impose new voter-specific data and ballot envelope standards, and potentially refuse the delivery of ​ballots that do not comply, which critics say could disrupt thousands of legitimate votes as the November ⁠3 vote approaches.

Republicans are locked in a tight battle to retain control of Congress in the election. Critics say restricting mail-in ballots ​would stand to disproportionately benefit Republicans given that Democratic voters traditionally have been more likely to use mail-in ballots.

It is the second ​time that the administration has turned to the Supreme Court as it defends Trump’s directive against legal challenges by states and voting rights groups. On August 24 the court lifted an earlier injunction imposed by Talwani in June blocking Trump’s order.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

That decision, powered by the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, faulted a coalition ​of mostly Democratic-governed states for suing too soon, but left the door open to another challenge. The court’s three liberal justices ​dissented.

RULE WOULD TIGHTEN STANDARDS FOR MAIL BALLOT DELIVERY

Under the new USPS rule, states must provide lists, opens new tab of mail ballot recipients to the postal service and use ‌agency-approved ⁠outbound and return ballot mail envelopes outfitted with unique barcodes. The postal service could then refuse to send out ballots that do not comply with the new standards or are associated with voters who do not appear on the lists.

Trump, who signed his executive order targeting mail-in ballots in March, has for years cast doubt on their security, although evidence of voter fraud is rare. Trump has ​made false claims of widespread fraud ​in U.S. elections including his ⁠2020 loss to former Democratic President Joe Biden.

blob:https://www.reuters.com/71744c45-b130-4b2d-a748-4b0e377b60bd
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-administration-takes-mail-in-ballot-fight-us-supreme-court-2026-09-03/
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-administration-takes-mail-in-ballot-fight-us-supreme-court-2026-09-03/
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-administration-takes-mail-in-ballot-fight-us-supreme-court-2026-09-03/
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-administration-takes-mail-in-ballot-fight-us-supreme-court-2026-09-03/
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-administration-takes-mail-in-ballot-fight-us-supreme-court-2026-09-03/
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-administration-takes-mail-in-ballot-fight-us-supreme-court-2026-09-03/
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-administration-takes-mail-in-ballot-fight-us-supreme-court-2026-09-03/

The administration in its written filing on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to allow it to implement an “important federal policy to protect the mails from being ​used to commit voter fraud.”

A coalition of mostly Democratic-governed states and Washington, D.C., as well as ​a number of ⁠voting rights groups, challenged the new USPS rule.

Talwani issued a temporary order on August 27 blocking the rule for 14 days, finding that it likely violates the U.S. Constitution, under which the states administer elections, and would be impossible for the states to comply with given the ⁠rapidly approaching ​midterms.

The Justice Department asked the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to ​put the judge’s order on hold, but did not wait for a decision before turning to the Supreme Court.

Talwani also held a hearing on Thursday to consider whether ​to issue a longer-term injunction.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Howard Goller

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

House Oversight Committee weighs holding billionaire Leon Black in contempt of Congress

2026-09-03 07:15 PM EDT / CNN Politics

House Oversight Committee weighs holding billionaire Leon Black in contempt of Congress

The Lead

Rep. James Walkinshaw joins The Lead.

0:57 • Source: CNN

Smithsonian showdown intensifies as Trump administration issues a stark new warning

DOI and White House letter claims evidence of federal antidiscrimination law violations but does not detail specifics

September 3, 2026 4:34pm EDT / Fox News

By Robert Schmad Fox News

Laura: Traditional approaches to history have been jettisoned in favor of ‘restorative history’

Fox News host Laura Ingraham accuses the Smithsonian of promoting a divisive ‘activist agenda’ and ‘restorative history’ that negatively frames America. She highlights National Museum of American History director Anthea Hartig’s testimony regarding the museum’s educational materials and controversial exhibits, including an alleged ‘fetish attire’ display and the exclusion of pro-life history. Ingraham questions the use of taxpayer funds for such programs.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/b56dd403-586c-46f8-9575-dfc12f553674

Listen to this article

4 min

The Trump administration says it has uncovered evidence that the Smithsonian Institution violated federal nondiscrimination laws and is threatening to withdraw support from its museums unless it corrects course, according to a letter recently made public by the Department of the Interior.

“The administration has recently uncovered evidence that the Smithsonian leadership’s institutional culture may have resulted in significant violations of Federal antidiscrimination law, including creating a hostile work environment and engaging in practices that classify individuals and allocate opportunities, funding and other benefits on the basis of race, ethnicity and other protected characteristics,” a letter sent jointly to the Smithsonian by the DOI and White House reads.

Specific evidence of illegal activity on the part of the Smithsonian was not included in the letter, and the DOI did not provide further information when reached for comment. A recent Fox News Digital investigation found that many leading figures at the Smithsonian, including those involved in hiring, have been strong proponents of diversity, equity and inclusion — something the Trump administration has previously framed as racially discriminatory.

TRUMP’S SMITHSONIAN CLASH EXPOSES STRIKING PATTERN AMONG MUSEUM CURATORS

President Donald Trump blasted the Smithsonian on Truth Social Tuesday for being “OUT OF CONTROL” and “woke.”(Getty Images)

Conservative political leaders, led by President Donald Trump, have accused the Smithsonian of allowing progressive ideology to shape its presentation of American history. An executive order signed in 2025 directed officials to remove what it called “improper ideology,” from the museum.

“The Executive Order signed by the President of the United States clearly states ‘the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Administrator of General Services, and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy shall identify and utilize any and all available authorities to promote the policy of this order and to restore trust in the Smithsonian Institution,” a DOI spokesperson told Fox News Digital.

TRUMP TARGETS BIDEN-ERA BILLION-DOLLAR SMITHSONIAN BUDGETS AMID ANTI-‘WOKE’ PUSH

Liberals have framed criticism of the Smithsonian as a partisan attempt to influence the presentation of history. (Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images)

Liberals, meanwhile, have framed conservative criticism of the Smithsonian as a partisan attempt to influence the public presentation of history.

Unless the Smithsonian remedies the issues outlined in the DOI’s recent letter, as well as the general bias which conservatives allege exists at the institution, the administration says it will consider pulling support from it. The threats this time around, however, differ from the ongoing fight over the roughly $1 billion a year in federal funding the Smithsonian receives.

SMITHSONIAN’S TAXPAYER FUNDS FACE CHOPPING BLOCK AS GOP DEMANDS ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ‘WOKE’ HISTORY

The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History was called out for being “ideologically captured” and presenting woke revisionist history.(Kevin Carter)

“Those executive departments and agencies cannot in good conscience continue to support the Smithsonian under current leadership by, for example, loaning artifacts for exhibits, enabling procurement processes and making discretionary grants,” the letter reads.

While the letter does not provide specific changes that the administration would like to see from the Smithsonian, it does note that an “appropriate response” from the organization “must likewise address executive leadership and institutional ideology.”

That wording could be significant as the institution operates independently but is overseen by board members appointed by congressional resolutions that the president must sign into law. By October, there will be four openings on the institution’s board of regents, a fact the administration may leverage to increase its influence over the Smithsonian.

“Very few Americans want the Smithsonian National Museum of American History to be used, in the words of its director, as a ‘prime tool of social justice’ and as an instrument of ideological activism and advocacy,” Vince Haley, the director of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council told Fox News Digital when asked about the letter. “Unfortunately, the Saving America’s Story report demonstrates, using the statements of Museum leadership and the interpretive guidelines adopted by the Museum, that this is exactly what the Smithsonian’s flagship museum has become.”

“During this 250th anniversary year of our heroic founding, the least our citizens are owed is an honest and inspiring account of American history. It should begin by telling the story of our Founding Fathers — who they were, what they did, and what they built. It is our hope and expectation that the Smithsonian will eventually rise once again to that noble obligation — to tell America’s story for our children, the world and future generations of Americans,” he added.

WATCH: SMITHSONIAN HISTORY MUSEUM DIRECTOR STUMBLES OVER BASIC QUESTIONS ON SEX: ‘I’M NOT SURE’

Anthea Hartig, director of the Smithsonian Institute’s National Museum of American History, testifies during a House subcommittee hearing titled “Rewriting American History: Examining the Smithsonian’s Efforts to Reshape the Past,” on July 21, 2026.(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

DOI requests that representatives from the Smithsonian meet with administration officials “at [their] earliest convenience” to discuss the alleged bias and civil rights violations present at the institution.

“The museum does not take sides in America’s political debates. We preserve and document the evidence of American life in all of its breadth, so that the public can encounter the past and draw their own conclusions,” National Museum of American History’s director Anthea Hartig said at a July congressional hearing.

The Smithsonian declined to comment on the letter when reached by Fox News Digital on Thursday.

Recent reporting has found that the museum’s leadership and many of its curators have backgrounds in liberal advocacy or Democratic politics. In addition to exhibits at the National Museum of American History, which the Trump administration characterized as demonizing America, even the Smithsonian-run National Zoo is inundated with information about DEI and gender equity.

American automakers urge Congress to ban Chinese vehicle sales in the U.S.

September 3, 2026 5:18 PM EDT / CBS News

By Megan Cerullo Reporter, MoneyWatch
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

A trade group representing American automakers is urging Congress to permanently bar the sale of Chinese vehicles in the U.S.

In a letter to senior lawmakers, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation on Thursday called on them to “enact a permanent ban on the sale, import and manufacture of Chinese connected vehicles, hardware and software” in the U.S., citing China’s alleged unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft and pattern of surveillance.

“This behavior is a feature of the Chinese approach and especially acute when it comes to China’s strategy to dominate global automotive manufacturing and critical supply chains,” wrote the group’s president and CEO, John Bozzella.

Bozzella also said that non-Chinese automakers are unfairly disadvantaged by China’s industrial and manufacturing policy, which the car industry group said threatens to undermine the U.S. automotive manufacturing sector.

U.S. automakers face mounting competition from Chinese rivals, including BYD, which is exporting more low-cost vehicles worldwide.

China has made particular headway in electric vehicles, where it is the world’s largest EV market and a growing exporter. Under a January trade deal with Canada, for example, China’s Geely Auto Group will be allowed to sell tens of thousands of EVs in the country every year, with Canadian tariffs set to drop from 100% to just 6%.

“China is capturing market share in Europe, Australia, Southeast Asia, Mexico and South America with vehicles capable of collecting, processing and transmitting sensitive vehicle and consumer data to the Chinese Communist Party,” Bozzella wrote.

“This hasn’t happened inside the U.S. yet, but given the scale and urgency of this threat, we urge you to enact a Chinese vehicle, software and hardware ban before adjourning this year and make this policy the law of the land,” he added.

Edited by Alain Sherter

Former NFL quarterback Mark Sanchez files motion for guilty plea in Indianapolis stabbing incident

September 3, 2026 / 6:55 PM EDT / CBS/AP

Former NFL quarterback and ex-Fox Sports analyst Mark Sanchez has filed a motion to plead guilty in connection with an October 2025 incident with a truck driver in whichhe was stabbed outside an Indianapolis hotel, court documents show.

It wasn’t immediately clear what charges Sanchez was pleading guilty to, but he is facing a felony battery charge and several misdemeanors, including unlawful entry of a motor vehicle and public intoxication.

The motion for a guilty plea and sentencing hearing was filed Thursday in Marion County, Indiana, Superior Court. A judge would need to accept the plea.

Former NFL broadcaster Mark Sanchez on the field prior to a game between the Arizona Cardinals and the San Francisco 49ers at Levi’s Stadium on Sept. 21, 2025, in Santa Clara, California. Brooke Sutton / Getty Images

“This is a positive development. We are finalizing an agreement with the prosecutor’s office that provides a path toward resolving the state’s case. We’re also encouraged by the constructive conversations taking place regarding the related civil matter. There is real momentum toward bringing this entire chapter to a close,” Nick Sanchez Jr., Mark Sanchez’s brother and legal adviser, said in a statement to CBS News.

The ex-NFL quarterback’s jury trial was scheduled to start Tuesday. The trial had been rescheduled five times since it was initially set to begin in December.

A police affidavit alleged that Sanchez, who was in town for the Colts vs. Raiders game at Lucas Oil Stadium in his capacity as a Fox Sports analyst, accosted 69-year-old Perry Tole, who had backed his truck into a hotel’s loading docks in downtown Indianapolis on Oct. 4, 2025. Tole told police and has claimed in a lawsuit that Sanchez entered the truck without permission, then physically blocked and shoved Tole from entering the truck and trying to get his phone.

Tole told police he “realized things had escalated, and he was now in physical danger, so he reached into his pocket and grabbed his pepper spray and sprayed Mr. Sanchez in the face,” the affidavit said.

When Sanchez moved toward Tole after he was sprayed, Tole pulled out his knife to defend himself and stabbed Sanchez “two or three times,” according to the affidavit.

Sanchez was hospitalized with stab wounds to his upper right torso, according to the affidavit. A picture of Tole that circulated online after the incident showed him in a neck brace on a hospital bed, covered in blood with a deep slash to the side of his face.

Tole told police and claimed in a civil lawsuit against Sanchez and Fox that the former broadcaster smelled of alcohol and his speech was slurred prior to the fight.

“We are pleased with the constructive and professional conversations we’ve had with Mr. Sanchez’s team,” attorney Matt Golitko, who represents Tole, said in a statement to CBS News. “Our discussions have been productive and we’re on a positive path toward an agreement that will allow the parties to move forward. Mr. Tole appreciates the progress we have achieved and looks forward to an amicable resolution.”

Sanchez, who played in the NFL for 10 years before retiring in 2019, was let go by Fox Sports following the incident. He spent the first four years of his professional career with the New York Jets before moving on to short stints with the Philadelphia Eagles, Denver Broncos, Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bears and Washington.

Judge declares she’s ‘not the Lorax’ during hearing on Trump’s DC golf course renovation

2026-09-03T20:31:29.191Z / CNN

A federal judge on Thursday lamented the anger and threats she has faced over the removal of trees as part of President Donald Trump’s controversial effort to turn a public golf course in Washington, DC, into a championship-level one.

But the discussion about the removal of the trees at the East Potomac Golf Course – which dominated a proceeding that ostensibly was about the case schedule – was ultimately resolved with Trump’s opponents accepting the government’s explanation that the trees were chopped down for routine reasons.

US District Judge Ana Reyes noted the irony that this year is America’s 250th birthday and “a president chopping down cherry trees” is a court matter, harkening back to an apocryphal story associated with President George Washington.

“People are pretty upset,” she noted, adding that she has received threats, including from someone who said he would remove her if she didn’t “save the trees.”

“I do not speak for the trees, I am not the Lorax” she said, referencing the famous Dr. Seuss book and character while echoing its cadence of lines, “I am a judge.”

The leadup to Thursday’s hearing involved weeks of concern, anger and speculation among locals and activists over the National Park Service’s removal of trees at the course beginning in late August.

Department of Justice lawyers revealed that about 150 trees – 77 invasive and 77 dead, dying or hazardous trees were cut down. There are around 3,800 trees in the park.

“Trees throughout the park are regularly monitored for potential safety impacts to visitors, and when a tree is determined to be dying, declining or hazardous our arborists may make the decision to remove it,” the Department of Interior told CNN in a statement.

Shortly before the hearing, Trump’s opponents in the case submitted court declarations questioning the suggestions that the removed trees were rotting or a danger to players on the course.

However, during the hearing, the plaintiffs then backed down, saying they didn’t have reason to question the rationale for the tree’s removal.

Thursday’s hearing was scheduled as a status conference for the judge and parties to check in on where the litigation about the course should go next.

The administration has previously sought to dismiss the case. In court filings Wednesday, the Department of Interior pointed to recent rulings from the Supreme Court – siding with the administration in cases concerning the construction of the White House East Wing ballroom and an executive order on mail voting – and argued those rulings meant that the case should be thrown out.

Rather than deciding that request, the legal challengers are being given the okay to amend their earlier lawsuit to take into account those recent legal developments. Reyes indicated she would be willing to decide quickly whatever motion to dismiss the government may file then.

The DC Preservation League and two local golfers are pressing the judge to issue an order that would bar the Trump administration from moving ahead on the plan.

Reyes, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, has previously declined to block the work on the course because she was unconvinced that any laws had been broken.

Over the summer she instructed both sides to come to an agreement for the Trump administration to report on any new golf course activity to the court while initial stages of the litigation play out.

Reyes on Thursday expressed her satisfaction with how the government had kept her apprised, and was unwilling to order the administration to take additional steps to notify the legal challengers where the government was in the planning process for the course.

But she also voiced sympathy for the preservation league’s concerns that the administration could take a drastic action without any heads up that would be irreversible if a judge later found the action illegal.

“What I don’t want is to be here with a fait accompli,” Reyes said.

Trump, an avid golfer, first publicly proposed the idea in May about taking over and expanding the municipal golf course that sits on a 300-acre manmade peninsula just south of the National Mall.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum unveiled a rendering of the planned renovations from Fazio Design, a consultancy owned by the noted golf architect Tom Fazio, who designed Trump’s Bedminster golf course and three other of the president’s properties.

The Links currently offers two nine-hole courses and an 18-hole course.

“Like iconic public courses of Bethpage Black & Torrey Pines, East Potomac will offer locals — of the National Capital Region — championship-quality golf at affordable, highly discounted rates,” Burgum posted on X with a rendering of the Links plans .

Trump, Burgum and Fazio were photographed walking the course together in June, blueprints in hand.

Those plans have not yet been made publicly available, but appeared to have been updated and more expansive, with a nearly complete takeover of the entire peninsula. A playground, recreational area and a 9-hole course often used by more novice players have been jettisoned in favor of a single 18-hole course.

Trump said after the visit that the course was “dilapidated, worn out, and very dangerous and outdated.”

Speaking to Golf.com in June, Fazio said the president’s ambition is to upgrade the links to “literally a national monument,” where a national golf championship could be held.

“The president happens to be a guy of action,” Fazio said. “He wants to get this thing done so people can enjoy it, play it, and not one of these ‘10 years down the road and drag it out forever’ things. He wants to get it done now.”

The aim would be for the course to be ready for play by summer 2028, before Trump leaves office.

The administration has not yet brought plans before the two key federal agencies, the National Capitol Planning Commission (NCPC) and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), that review and approve major changes on federal property in Washington.

Former US pardon attorney Liz Oyer sues DOJ for unlawful firing

2026-09-03 22:32:37 UTC / Reuters

By Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff

September 3, 2026 10:32 PM UTC Updated 1 hour ago

Witness Elizabeth Oyer, former Department of Justice Pardon Attorney, attends the second day of Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for U.S. Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 16, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

WASHINGTON, Sept 3 (Reuters) – The former U.S. pardon attorney has sued the Justice Department over what she calls an unlawful firing after she said she declined to recommend restoring gun ​rights to actor Mel Gibson, a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump.

The suit ‌is the latest by a senior government official against the Trump administration over alleged wrongful termination.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Elizabeth Oyer, who served as pardon attorney from 2022-2025 and has become an outspoken critic of the administration and Attorney General ​Todd Blanche, alleged she was asked to ignore her concerns about Gibson’s history ​of domestic violence, among other issues, and recommend he regain firearm access, according ⁠to the suit filed on Thursday.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

After she refused, and refused another request from a staff ​member of Blanche, then the deputy attorney general, Oyer received termination papers from security officers. She ​was told she was being fired under Trump’s Article 2 authority, a section of the Constitution that establishes the presidency.

“This case is about much more than what happened to me,” Oyer said in a statement. “If career ​officials like me can be fired for refusing to bend the rules to serve the ​president’s friends, then the message to every public servant is clear: loyalty to a politician matters more than ‌loyalty ⁠to the Constitution.”

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Oyer’s suit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., is seeking an order that declares her removal was unlawful, reinstates her federal service and restores her pay. She originally appealed her firing to the ​Merit Systems Protection Board ​in April 2025, after ⁠which an administrative judge dismissed her appeal.

Democratic lawmakers called Oyer to give testimony in July in opposition to Blanche’s nomination for attorney general. ​During that hearing, Oyer repeated her wrongful termination allegations. The day prior, ​Blanche said ⁠Oyer had been fired for reasons unrelated to Gibson.

“I didn’t even know of that. I had known nothing about Mel Gibson or that letter when I fired her. Nothing,” he told lawmakers.

He ⁠said it ​was instead in part related to commutation recommendations she ​had provided to former President Joe Biden. Oyer told lawmakers the next day that was the first time she heard ​her firing related to those recommendations.

blob:https://www.reuters.com/7c0c56da-a7a5-42b8-bee9-69ffb826c440

Reporting by Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff; Editing by Michael Learmonth and Stephen Coates

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.