Karen Read Files Lawsuit Against Massachusetts Police Over Death of Husband

Trump Announces $700 Million Plan to Revive U.S. Coal Industry

June’s Family Focus: GOP Governors Rebrand Pride Month as ‘Family’ Celebrations

Hezbollah Rejects Renewed Ceasefire Agreement Between Israel and Lebanon

Senate Moves Forward on $70 B Immigration Enforcement Funding","description":"The Senate is set to vote on a three‑year funding package for ICE and the Border Patrol amid Democratic opposition and a controversial $1.776 B settlement fund.","summary":"After months of stalemate, the Senate will vote on a $70 B bill to fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. Democrats have blocked the money as protest, demanding policy changes, while Republicans navigate potential amendments to keep the legislation pure. The bill’s fate hinges on a narrow GOP majority and a contentious $1.776 B settlement fund for alleged political persecution of Trump allies, which Republicans have moved to remove. The debate also touches on broader reforms for federal immigration authorities.","image":"https://assets.apnews.com/00/95/665adbf0609b1cca4648d0fe512e/419aaebd4c6b4a3aac98e9eadce2f0da","text":"<p>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is beginning a long series of votes Thursday on legislation to fund President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agencies, moving toward passage of a three‑year fix as Democrats have blocked the money for months in protest.</p>\n<p>The roughly $70 B bill to fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol would end the blockade by Democrats who demanded policy changes after the fatal shootings of two protesters by federal agents in January. The bill would fund the agencies for three years, through the end of Trump’s term.</p>\n<p>First, however, Republicans must beat back a potential gauntlet of amendments that Democrats plan to offer, including to try and permanently ban Trump’s $1.776 B settlement fund for allies he believes have been politically persecuted. Democrats have said their first amendment Thursday morning will be to eliminate the fund and send the immigration spending bill back to committee.</p>\n<p>Senate Republicans are using a complicated procedural maneuver to get around the filibuster and pass the budget legislation with no Democratic votes. But it has taken weeks to get the bill to the Senate floor as Republicans navigated various obstacles to passage created by Trump and the White House — including a $1 B proposal for White House security that they eventually scrapped and fierce bipartisan backlash to the settlement fund.</p>\n<p>“The thing we’re trying to do here is to keep the focus on funding for ICE and CBP,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Wednesday evening, after the Senate voted to start debating the legislation. “This was narrow and targeted from the very beginning and clean, and we’re trying to maintain it that way.”</p>\n<p>But it’s unclear if Republicans will have enough votes to fend off the Democratic amendments. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said this week that the fund would not move forward, and many GOP senators said Wednesday that they were satisfied with his remarks.</p>\n<p>Yet Trump, who has been at odds with Senate Republicans in recent weeks, raised new doubts about the settlement’s future on Wednesday afternoon when he told reporters that the settlement is “very important” and said “I don’t know” whether it is dead or on hold.</p>\n<p>After Trump’s comments about the fund, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer posted on X that “this is EXACTLY why” Democrats would be forcing votes to ban it.</p>\n<p>Some Republicans also plan to try to put Blanche’s promise in writing. Sen. Thom Tillis, R‑N.C., has said he will offer an amendment to block any attempt at resurrecting the fund. “We’ve got a sufficient number of Republicans who have been very clear they’ve got concerns there,” Tillis said.</p>\n<p>Democrats say any funding bill for the Homeland Security Department should place restraints on federal immigration authorities, including better identification for federal officers and more use of judicial warrants, among other asks.</p>\n<p>After federal agents shot Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Trump agreed to a Democratic request that the Homeland Security bill be separated from a larger spending measure that became law. But bipartisan negotiations went nowhere, and the DHS funding lapsed in mid‑February with no agreement on changes to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics.</p>\n<p>Congress eventually funded the rest of the Homeland Security Department at the end of April with Democratic support. But ICE and Border Patrol remained without regular funding, and Republicans launched a new effort to pass three years of funding for those agencies with no Democratic votes.</p>\n<p>Work on the legislation was also delayed by Republican opposition to $1 B in security funding for the White House, including for Trump’s new ballroom, that was added to the original bill. Democrats and some Republicans questioned using taxpayer money for the massive project, and Republicans did not include it in the final bill when it was released on Wednesday.</p>\n<p>Thune said he was working with his GOP conference to try and fight off any amendments and ensure he has enough votes for a simple majority to pass the bill in the 53‑47 Senate. “Keep in mind, we’ve got to keep them all together, make sure we’ve got 50 votes for it,” he said.</p>\n<p>Republican House leaders said Wednesday they would like to clear the legislation before the end of the week, if the Senate can finish it. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R‑La., said that House leaders were having internal conversations about the schedule. “We just need to make sure everybody’s there,” Scalise said.</p>

Israeli strikes kill 11 people in Gaza City, medics say

Murder Trial Begins for Former Texas Athlete After Fatal Stabbing at Track Meet

Bondi Beach hero, hailed after mass shooting, charged with domestic assault

Trump Transforms Higher‑Education Oversight From Investigations to Rule‑Making","description":"The administration’s new strategy reboots federal rules, aiming to steer university policies toward a conservative‑defined \"intellectual diversity\" and curb policies it deems \"woke.\"","summary":"After a year of campus inspections and funding cuts, President Trump is now rewriting federal regulations governing higher education. The new rules target DEI initiatives, gender‑inclusive policies, antisemitism, and admission practices that use race. Universities have already begun adjusting to avoid scrutiny. The shift reduces the number of investigations but launches a new regulatory regime that could slash funding across thousands of schools.","image":"https://picsum.photos/800/450","text":"<h2>From Blitz to Blueprint</h2><p>A year ago the White House launched a campaign of campus inspections, cutting federal money unless universities folded their curricula into the President’s political playbook. This month the Trump administration has shifted to a more sweeping approach, rewriting federal rules that govern all U.S. higher‑education institutions. Rather than chasing individual schools, the new strategy embeds the administration’s priorities into the very framework that grants money to colleges and universities.</p><h2>Proposals to Alter the Accreditation Process</h2><p>The Education Department’s latest draft would overhaul the accreditation system, requiring accrediting agencies to certify colleges possess what the administration calls “intellectual diversity” – a nebulous demand for more conservative viewpoints.</p><p>With the Office of Management and Budget, a second proposal would force agencies to ensure federal grants advance the President’s policy agenda. The rule says grants must not be used to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, to endorse “anti‑American values,” or to deny the sex binary in humans. An OMB spokesperson claims the aim is to boost transparency, but critics see it as a way to eliminate funding for any program that diverges from the administration’s worldview.</p><h2>New Guidance for GSA Funding Recipients</h2><p>A General Services Administration proposal would require recipients of federal grants – including universities and their contractors – to certify that they do not have DEI policies deemed unlawful by the administration.</p><p>These moves mark a departure from the direct campus inspections of last year. They also give the administration a legal avenue to restrict funding without convening Congress, a route that has been a mainstay for federal policy changes for decades.</p><h2>Fewer Investigations, Different Tactics</h2><p>In contrast to the previous year’s flurry of investigations, the Education and Justice Departments have opened fewer new probes this year, with roughly a dozen new investigations announced so far. Last year’s figure exceeded 70, but the new focus is on the quality rather than the quantity of investigations.</p><p>While the White House has struck settlements with major schools such as Columbia, Brown, and Northwestern to halt enforcement actions, most cases remain unresolved for months. The Justice Department continues to sue Harvard and UCLA over alleged antisemitism and refusal to share admissions data, but the controversy also leads to more federal court battles that are time‑consuming and complex.</p><h2>Admissions Policies Under Scrutiny</h2><p>Investigations into college admissions now dominate the agenda. The Justice Department has concluded that medical schools at Yale and UCLA discriminated against white and Asian‑American applicants by favoring Black and Latino candidates. These probes are slow because they require large data sets and careful analysis.</p><p>Trump officials have stopped accepting any application language that explicitly references race, threatening the United States Supreme Court’s guidance that schools may look at a person’s race as part of a holistic admissions process.</p><h2>Campus Adjustments to Avoid Web‑Forces</h2><p>Faced with the new regulatory landscape, many campuses have already begun to pivot. Some have closed DEI offices, others have tightened protest rules, and the NCAA has restricted transgender athletes. Dean and professor language are now vetted to avoid potentially triggering federal attention.</p><p>University administrators report a chilling effect in classrooms: faculty worry that a single sentence might draw a regulatory review or a funding cut.</p><p>Still, some scholars see a countervailing momentum. The American Association of University Professors has filed lawsuits against the administration, most notably a case that blocked UCLA funding cuts. President Ted Mitchell of the American Council on Education welcomed the shift in tone, noting that a clearly defined regulatory process “gives us an opportunity to have a productive conversation.”</p><h2>Looking Beyond the League of Government</h2><p>As the nation’s higher‑education community grapples with these sweeping changes, its leaders are steering a dialogue to return the ball to college leaders and policymakers. The question remains whether federal rule‑making will influence campus culture more effectively than the earlier approach of sweeping investigations.</p>

New World Screwworm Fly Reappears in South Texas, Threatening Cattle Industry

Melinda French Gates Pledges $215 Million to Boost Women’s Health — From Contraception to Menopause Research

Ukraine Strike Claims Four Lives in Occupied Crimea

Detroit Chef Turns Her Kitchen Into Lifeline for War‑Affected Lebanon

Obama Presidential Center Opens: A Digital Museum of History and Community

Children Re‑Separated While Settlement Aims to Protect Them","description":"A family that spent years trying to reunite after Trump’s family‑separation policy is again pulled apart, exposing gaps in enforcement of a settlement designed to keep families together.","summary":"In 2018, three‑year‑old Ederson Galicia Alva was taken from his mother at the U.S. border and kept apart for months. After months of denial and a federal judge’s order that the government had acted illegally, his family returned to Florida. Yet, despite a 2023 settlement that protects members of the Ms. L class from separation, Ederson’s mother has been separated again and deported back to Guatemala, highlighting systemic failures and the urgent need for continued advocacy.","image":"https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/3b21a05/2147483647/strip/true/crop/8640x5760+0+0/resize/599x399!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2Ffe%2F6b%2Fb5695ec27def0182e3698487be98%2Fe89ef3586e4043848e6174551247b59d","text":"<p>In 2018, a 3‑year‑old boy named Ederson Galicia Alva was ripped from his mother’s arms at the U.S.–Mexico border during the first Trump administration’s family‑separation policy. He was held in a government facility for months while her family fought a legal battle to be reunited. A week later, a federal judge’s order forced the U.S. government to correct its actions, and after a year of living in the indigenous highlands of Guatemala, the family finally flew back to Florida last month.</p><p>That story, however, is not the end. The latest Associated Press investigation shows that dozens of families protected by the 2023 legal settlement—known as the Ms. L settlement—are again being separated. Parents have been detained for months, deported, and in some cases were tried for removal even when the paperwork indicated they were legally exempt. This new round of separations is happening despite a court order that the U.S. must not separate families who meet the settlement criteria.</p><h2 style=\"font-weight:bold;\">The Settlement and Its Gaps</h2><p>The 2023 settlement was designed to make sure that anyone who had been separated from a family under Trump’s policy would be reunited and receive comprehensive support: legal pathways to asylum, work permits, psychological counseling and job placement. Yet, as attorneys and advocates have found, the government has only partially complied. The settlement’s deadline for protection expires in December; the legal services contract that covers these families ends in August, and many families fear they will be denied the assistance they need if they don’t complete paperwork by these dates.</p><p>Ederson’s mother, Mirsy Maricela Alva López, had already felt the weight of this uncertainty. After her deportation in June, she watched her son grow simply because the limited legal reprieve her family could obtain was short—she was granted only two weeks’ humanitarian parole upon return. “I still haven’t told the children about the two weeks’ parole,” she explained to reporters on their first day back in West Palm Beach. “They’re going to worry that the same thing will happen again.”</p><h2 style=\"font-weight:bold;\">Government Response</h2><p>Facing AP’s questions, an acting Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis, told reporters that “our operations comply with all court orders.” She added that “enforcing immigration law is not optional.” While the DHS officer is clear that “every removal of an illegal alien helps restore order,” the facts on the ground tell a different story. Families report a lack of clarity on when they can actually reapply for asylum or request cancellation of pending removal orders, as required by the settlement.</p><h2 style=\"font-weight:bold;\">The Human Cost</h2><p>For Ederson and his family, every trip out of state and return to the U.S. is a liminal space marked by exhaustion and legal uncertainty. Each morning since her deportation, Alva López has checked her phone for a glimmer of hope. Money dries up, her children’s English slips, and the future feels unstable. The arrival of a federal judge’s order that she can return—though still with a two‑week parole—has only added to the anxiety.</p><p>That debate is not just about a single family. The headlines read: “Trump administration has separated dozens of children from their parents for a second time, AP finds.” The pattern shows a disturbing trend of forced separations after a policy was deemed illegal in 2019. If the settlement’s protections are not understood and enforced, the threat of mass deportations and separations grows greater.</p><h2 style=\"font-weight:bold;\">What Comes Next</h2><p>There are looming deadlines: families must request cancellation of any pending removal orders by December or risk losing their legal status in the U.S. At the same time, the government has not yet announced whether it will extend its current legal services contract, which ends in August. Those services are essential for families who still await reunification and are at risk of being separated once again.</p><p>The United States must act quickly. The case of Ederson Alva and his mother is a microcosm of a broader failure: a settlement designed to protect families has become a promise that is not honored. The current system must be revised to ensure that detained parents are reunited with their children immediately, that legal protections are applied, and that mandatory deportations cease for those who qualify under the settlement’s terms.</p><p>For more information, reach out to the Associated Press investigative team via email at <a href=\"mailto:investigative@ap.org\">investigative@ap.org</a> or phone at +1 (202) 281‑8604. For secure communication, use the Signal app.</p>

From Miami to Guatemala: One Family’s Battle Against Repeated Separation

Senate Repeals $1bn Security Pack to Stall Trump’s New White House Ballroom

St. Paul City Attorney Declines State Charges for Protesters Who disrupted Churches

Virginia Commercial Bus Crash Kills Five and Raises Safety Questions","description":"A bus collision on I‑95 in Virginia left five dead and many injured, prompting scrutiny of driver conduct, company practices, and industry safety standards.","summary":"On a Tuesday night, a charter bus operated by E&P Travel Inc. plunged into a traffic control vehicle near Smithfield, Virginia, killing five and injuring dozens. The incident, involving driver Jing Sheng Dong, who faced multiple speeding tickets and now faces involuntary manslaughter charges, has reignited debate over commercial bus safety. While technology such as collision‑avoidance and driver‑monitoring systems are common in new vehicles, federal regulations lag, with mandatory seat belts only adopted in 2016 and collision‑avoidance requirements still pending. NTSB investigators are examining the crash, yet their recommendations often remain unimplemented, largely because of cost concerns and industry resistance. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FMCSA officials are reviewing Dong’s CDL history and the company's hiring practices, underscoring the complex interplay of driver fatigue, regulatory enforcement, and corporate responsibility in preventing similar tragedies.","image":"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1605899245933-6876f06e9c49?auto=format&fit=crop&w=800&q=80","text":"<p><img src=\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1605899245933-6876f06e9c49?auto=format&amp;fit=crop&amp;w=800&amp;q=80\" alt=\"Bus crash scene\" style=\"width:100%;height:auto;object-fit:cover;\"></p><p>A July 15 commercial bus crash in Virginia killed five passengers and injured dozens more, sparking an investigation that questions the driver, the company, and industry safety practices.</p><p>The bus, operated by E&P Travel Inc., collided with a traffic‑control vehicle on I‑95 near Smithfield at about 2:30 a.m. The driver, Jing Sheng Dong, a 48‑year‑old from New York City, now faces five charges of involuntary manslaughter and reckless driving. Dong’s driving record includes two recent speeding violations—73 mph in a 55 mph zone in Virginia and 72 mph in a 50 mph zone in Maryland—raising concerns about driver fatigue and adherence to federal rest rules.</p><h2 style=\"font-weight:bold;\">NTSB Investigation and Unfulfilled Recommendations</h2><p>While the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation is pending, the crash highlights a long‑standing gap between safety recommendations and enforcement. The NTSB has repeatedly recommended collision‑avoidance technology for commercial buses, yet a federal rule mandating such systems is still under consideration.</p><p>Other safety improvements, such as stricter standards to mitigate driver fatigue and ensuring adequate rest between trips, remain unimplemented. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration cites cost as a primary barrier, noting that a new motorcoach can cost as much as $650,000, and tariff increases are further inflating expenses.</p><h2 style=\"font-weight:bold;\">Regulatory and Corporate Oversight</h2><p>Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is scrutinizing both Dong’s commercial driver's license and E&P Travel Inc.'s hiring and training protocols. While the Department of Transportation has reviewed that New York followed licensing rules, the agency’s focus has traditionally centered on trucks rather than buses.</p><p>Industry safety experts, including Jim Hall, former NTSB chairman, argue that federal regulations should factor in the cost–benefit analysis and enforce compliance, rather than merely issuing recommendations that are met with excuses when they impact profitability.</p><h2 style=\"font-weight:bold;\">Safety Measures in the Bus Industry</h2><p>Despite the cost hurdles, many bus companies have adopted advanced driver‑monitoring and telematics systems, and some have installed collision‑avoidance technology. Officers like Fred Ferguson of the American Bus Association emphasize that safety is both an ethical obligation and a sound business practice, citing the potential for catastrophic accidents if such systems are not in place.</p><p>Evidence suggests that bus drivers must travel no more than 10 hours without rest or 15 hours of work without at least 8 hours of off‑road time. Electronic logs have improved compliance, though tampering remains a risk.</p><p>Transportation Secretary Duffy noted that the 2024 crash involving another E&P Travel driver—a similar incident in North Carolina that injured nine people—underscores systemic issues in driver scheduling and training.</p><p>As investigations continue, the incident underscores the need for stronger regulatory oversight, better enforcement of existing safety recommendations, and a corporate commitment to safeguarding passengers and drivers alike.</p>

US House Blocks Trump’s Iran War Plans: A Rare Congressional Thrust