ICE will only release body camera video when in agency’s ‘best interests,’ policy says

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-08-07 18:35:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Rescinds Body Camera Mandate for Federal Agents Amid ICE Accountability Concerns

President Donald Trump’s administration has come under scrutiny after rescinding a Biden-era order that required federal law enforcement agencies to use body cameras. This move, made after Trump returned to office in 2025, has drawn criticism from experts and former officials who argue that the lack of transparency undermines public trust and accountability—especially as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers have faced increased pressure following fatal shootings during Trump’s immigration crackdown.

ICE Delays and Policy Gaps

ICE began testing body cameras in 2021 under President Joe Biden, distributing 1,400 devices and promising further expansion as funding allowed. However, after Trump took office again, his administration not only rescinded the federal body camera requirement but also delayed purchasing additional cameras—even after Congress provided a historic $75 billion funding boost to the agency in 2025. ICE only began significant camera purchases in July, following several high-profile shootings and mounting pressure from lawmakers.

Critics, including Jason Houser, ICE chief of staff under Biden, have accused the Trump administration of “slow-rolling” the deployment of body cameras. Houser argued that the administration should have equipped officers with cameras when it ramped up mass arrests and traffic stops, rather than waiting for public outcry after fatal incidents. He described the delayed rollout as “clearly a political response” that fails to address the underlying issues of officer training and operational readiness.

Selective Transparency Raises Red Flags

ICE’s new body camera policy, issued in February 2025, gives the agency broad discretion over what footage is released to the public. The policy states that video of shootings or incidents causing death or serious injury will only be released if it is deemed “in the best interests of the agency.” This allows ICE’s director to release footage that casts the agency in a positive light while withholding or delaying video that could be damaging. Experts say this approach is unusually explicit in its intent to control the agency’s public image.

Katherine Hawkins, a senior legal analyst at the Project On Government Oversight, warned that the policy makes body camera footage “virtually useless” for public accountability, as there is no clear mechanism for the public to access recordings. Even when footage is released, ICE will redact officers’ faces, names, and badge numbers, further limiting transparency.

Conclusion: Political Motives and Public Trust

The Trump administration’s decision to rescind the federal body camera mandate and delay ICE’s camera rollout has raised serious questions about its commitment to transparency and accountability in law enforcement. By giving ICE broad control over what footage is made public, the administration risks eroding public trust—especially as the agency continues to conduct high-stakes operations under Trump’s aggressive immigration policies. As experts and former officials have noted, meaningful reform requires not just technology, but a genuine commitment to openness and oversight.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/ice-will-only-release-body-camera-video-when-in-agencys-best-interests-policy-says

Appeals court says Congress must ok White House ballroom : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-08-07 13:10:00 — www.npr.org

Trump Attacks Court Ruling Halting White House Ballroom, Claims National Security at Risk

President Trump lashed out at a federal appeals court decision ordering his administration to halt construction of a massive White House ballroom, calling the ruling “horrendous, politically motivated and unlawful.” Within hours of the decision, Trump announced on Truth Social that his administration would appeal immediately, emphasizing that the two judges who ruled against him were appointed by Democratic presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Trump continued to defend the ballroom project as essential for national security, arguing that the court’s decision “severely jeopardizes the lives and welfare of the people who work, and will be working, at the White House — including all future Presidents of the United States, and their families, as well as the lives of all those visiting, such as Heads of State and other Dignitaries, and all Americans who wish to visit the historic, beautiful Executive Mansion.” He described the project as a “single, integrated” security upgrade, including bomb shelters, top-secret military facilities, and advanced protective features.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

The appeals court made clear that construction of the ballroom cannot proceed without explicit approval from Congress, stating, “Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help.” The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the lawsuit, celebrated the ruling, reiterating that only Congress has the authority to approve such a project.

Trump’s administration has repeatedly framed the ballroom as a national security necessity, even citing recent threats and incidents to bolster its case. However, the legal challenge centers on the administration’s failure to follow the legally mandated review process, including obtaining congressional approval. The Washington Post reported that the cost of the project could reach at least $600 million, far higher than the original $200 million estimate.

Conclusion

Trump’s response to the court ruling highlights his pattern of attacking judicial decisions and framing opposition as politically motivated, while continuing to push forward with controversial projects without following established legal procedures. The ongoing legal battle underscores the importance of checks and balances in government decision-making, especially when it comes to projects with significant financial, historical, and security implications.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/07/nx-s1-5925123/white-house-ballroom-appeals-court-congress

Donald J. Trump: “THE PROTECT COLLEGE SPORTS ACT is a great Bill, and the Senate will hopefull…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-08-07 15:52:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Pushes for College Sports Bill With Dubious Claims and Attacks Critics

President Donald J. Trump has thrown his support behind the Protect College Sports Act, urging the Senate to remain in Washington, D.C., until the bill passes. In a statement, Trump claimed, “Without this Bill, millions of young Athletes will be hurt, programs will be canceled, Women’s and Olympic Sports will go away, the fans will be robbed, and Universities will go broke.” He further asserted, “Nobody has done more to protect Women Athletes than me,” and insisted the bill “CLEARLY protects the Laws in 27 States protecting Women’s Sports, and banning Men from Women’s Sports.” Trump also dismissed critics, declaring, “Anyone who tells you differently is LYING!”

Exaggerated Consequences and Unsubstantiated Claims

Trump’s statement is filled with sweeping predictions about the future of college sports if the bill does not pass. The claim that “millions of young Athletes will be hurt” and that “Universities will go broke” lacks supporting evidence. While the legislation addresses issues related to gender participation in sports, there is no clear data indicating that failure to pass the bill would lead to the collapse of women’s and Olympic sports or widespread financial ruin for universities.

Questionable Record on Women’s Sports

Trump’s assertion that “Nobody has done more to protect Women Athletes than me” is not supported by his record. While he has repeatedly spoken out on the issue of transgender participation in women’s sports, independent fact-checkers have found no evidence of significant policy achievements or initiatives during his presidency that directly advanced protections for women athletes beyond public statements.

Attacks on Opponents

In his statement, Trump labels anyone who disagrees with his position as “LYING,” a tactic he has frequently used to discredit critics. This approach sidesteps substantive debate and frames opposition as dishonest, rather than engaging with the complexities of the issue or the range of expert opinions on the impact of the bill.

Conclusion: Rhetoric Over Reality

President Trump’s push for the Protect College Sports Act relies heavily on exaggerated threats and self-praise, rather than verifiable facts. His statement distorts the potential consequences of the bill’s failure and overstates his own contributions to women’s sports. As the Senate considers this legislation, it is crucial for lawmakers and the public to separate rhetoric from reality and base decisions on evidence, not hyperbole.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/40638

Trump renews bid to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook despite supreme court ruling | Federal Reserve

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-08-07 13:47:00 — www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump Renews Effort to Remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook, Repeating Disputed Allegations

Donald Trump is once again seeking to remove US Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, reviving allegations of mortgage fraud against her despite a recent Supreme Court decision that upheld the central bank’s independence and Cook’s right to remain in her position while contesting the charges.

According to reports, Cook received a letter from the White House this week indicating that Trump is “considering removing” her from her Fed post over the same mortgage fraud claims he raised last summer. The letter, first reported by ABC News, accused Cook of falling “well short of the standard” required of a sitting Fed governor and requested a written response to the allegations within three weeks.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in June that Cook was entitled to stay on as Fed governor while she fights the president’s allegations, stating in its majority opinion that Trump “failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled by statute.” The justices noted, “Without such protections, she could not properly dispute the charges the president laid against her.”

Trump’s Allegations and Attacks on the Fed

Trump’s drive to oust Cook began last August, when he abruptly fired her in what was widely seen as an unprecedented attack on the central bank’s independence. The White House accused Cook of wrongly designating two separate properties in Georgia and Michigan as her primary residence and failing to report rental income on her Atlanta property for two years. Cook has denied the allegations, describing them as “inadvertent” paperwork errors, and has sued the Trump administration for firing her without cause or proper procedure. Her legal team has argued that the administration is “cherrypicking” facts to support its claims.

Cook’s firing and ongoing legal battles have coincided with Trump’s repeated attacks on the Federal Reserve for not lowering interest rates. Cook, along with then Fed chair Jerome Powell, supported the central bank’s decision not to lower rates, drawing Trump’s ire. Trump disparaged Powell, calling him “too stupid and too political,” and initiated a Justice Department investigation into Powell’s renovations of the Fed’s headquarters, an inquiry that has since been dropped.

Fact-Check and Legal Context

The Supreme Court’s ruling made clear that Trump’s attempt to remove Cook did not follow the required legal procedures, and that Cook is entitled to due process before any removal can take place. Cook’s attorney, Abbe D Lowell, responded to the latest White House letter by calling the allegations “as baseless now as they were a year ago when President Trump tried to remove Governor Cook and interfere with the independence of the Federal Reserve.” Lowell added, “No matter what President Trump tries to do next, this much is clear under the facts and Supreme Court precedent – there is no valid cause for removing Governor Cook.”

Cook, appointed by Joe Biden in 2022 to a 14-year term, is the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor. Her career includes service on Barack Obama’s council of economic advisers and teaching positions at Harvard and Stanford.

Conclusion

Trump’s renewed effort to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve board continues his pattern of attacking the central bank’s independence and making allegations that have been repeatedly challenged and, so far, rejected by the courts. The Supreme Court’s recent decision underscores the importance of due process and the legal protections afforded to Fed governors, even in the face of presidential opposition. As the legal and political battle continues, the independence of the Federal Reserve remains a central issue.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/aug/07/trump-lisa-cook-fed-firing-scotus-ruling

Appeals court rules Trump can’t build White House ballroom without congressional approval

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-08-07 13:34:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Dismisses Court Ruling Halting White House Ballroom, Insists Congressional Approval Not Needed

A federal appeals court has ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to stop construction of a $400 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom at the White House, citing a lack of congressional approval. Trump, however, maintains that he does not need Congress’s authorization to proceed, calling the court’s decision “unjust” and vowing to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump’s Response and Claims

After the ruling, Trump took to social media to denounce the decision, quoting from a dissenting opinion by Judge Neomi Rao, whom he nominated. He described the planned facility as including bomb shelters, a hospital, medical facilities, and “Top Secret Military Facilities,” arguing that the project is essential for national security. Trump asserted, “The Military and Secret Service are viewing this horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful ruling as a National Security threat to our Nation in that the entire Complex is being built for the protection of our Country and, additionally, all future Presidents.”

Trump further argued that congressional approval is unnecessary because, according to him, no public money is being used for the ballroom’s construction. He claims to have raised hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations, wealthy individuals, and himself to fund the project.

Contradictions and Congressional Oversight

Despite Trump’s insistence, the record shows that his administration requested $1 billion for the ballroom, which Congress refused in May. Additionally, Democrats have raised concerns that $350 million from a tax cuts law may have been redirected to the project—contradicting Trump’s assertion that no public funds are involved.

The appeals court’s 2-1 decision sided with historic preservationists who sued to stop the construction, emphasizing that only Congress can authorize such a significant alteration to the White House. The court wrote, “Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help.”

National Security Justification Challenged

Trump and government lawyers have argued that the ballroom and associated underground facilities are necessary for national security, citing threats such as drones and missiles. However, attorneys for the preservation group countered that the absence of a White House ballroom does not constitute a national security emergency, a position the court found reasonable.

Conclusion

Trump’s public statements and the administration’s actions reveal a pattern of bypassing established legal and constitutional processes, particularly regarding congressional oversight of federal spending and construction. The court’s ruling underscores that even the president must adhere to the law and seek congressional approval for major changes to national landmarks. As the legal battle continues, the controversy highlights ongoing tensions between executive authority and the checks and balances fundamental to American democracy.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/appeals-court-rules-trump-cant-build-white-house-ballroom-without-congressional-approval

Appeals court blocks Trump's White House ballroom construction

Administration News — 2026-08-07 09:56:00 — thehill.com

A federal appeals court has blocked President Trump’s plans for a White House ballroom, ruling in a 2-1 decision that all work must stop except for below-ground construction, including installations that Trump says are needed for security. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit panel emphasized that Congress retains control over funding for development at the White House.

Trump’s Security Claims Face Judicial Scrutiny

President Trump has justified the continuation of below-ground work by stating that these installations are necessary for security. However, the court’s decision underscores the ongoing tension between Trump’s stated priorities and the legal limits set by congressional authority over federal spending.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Assertions

Within the context of this ruling, Trump’s claim that the below-ground installations are required for security has not been independently verified in the excerpt. The court’s order does not address the validity of Trump’s security rationale, focusing instead on the broader issue of congressional control over White House development funds.

Conclusion: Legal Limits on Presidential Projects

This latest court decision highlights the checks and balances that restrict presidential authority, particularly regarding federal property and funding. While President Trump maintains that certain construction is essential for security, the court’s ruling makes clear that such claims do not override congressional oversight. Readers should note that Trump’s statements about security needs remain subject to judicial and legislative review.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6016709-donald-trump-white-house-ballroom-construction-appeals-court-block/

Trump Administration Suggested Funding Afrikaner Group in South Africa — ProPublica

ProPublica — 2026-08-07 04:00:00 — www.propublica.org

Trump Administration Redirects Foreign Aid, Promotes Disputed Claims on South Africa

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump’s administration has fundamentally changed the direction of U.S. foreign aid, slashing budgets for well-established programs and labeling them as “not aligned with American interests.” While Congress has continued to require funding for humanitarian, global health, and pro-democracy initiatives, the Trump administration has shifted the focus of these funds—often toward controversial right-wing groups in Europe and elsewhere.

Shift in Priorities: From HIV Aid to White Minority Focus

A major shift has been observed in U.S. policy toward South Africa. For decades, American aid was largely dedicated to supporting HIV care, saving countless lives and maintaining a vital diplomatic relationship. However, since Trump’s return to office, his administration has prioritized the concerns of the white Afrikaner minority in South Africa, a group historically responsible for apartheid. Trump has repeatedly argued that there is a “genocide” of white South Africans and has claimed that they are subject to disproportionate violence. These claims have been used to justify cutting off U.S. funding for HIV treatment and research in South Africa.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Extensive research, however, contradicts Trump’s assertions. Studies show that white South African farmers are not victims of crime at higher rates than other groups. Experts and former diplomats have expressed shock that the Trump administration would prioritize the victimization of whites in South Africa over more pressing human rights issues elsewhere on the continent. One former agency official called the idea “laughable,” pointing out that South Africa is plagued by violence affecting all communities.

Controversial Grants and Right-Wing Ties

The Trump administration has also considered funding groups with ties to right-wing and borderline white nationalist causes, both in South Africa and Europe. For example, officials suggested a grant for research on crimes against Afrikaners and considered supporting a British free-speech organization that opposes bans on “gay conversion therapy”—a practice widely discredited by medical experts. Some of these proposed grants have been dropped after pushback, but the administration’s overall direction remains clear.

Undermining Competitive Bidding and Oversight

Concerns have also been raised about the administration’s attempts to bypass federal requirements for competitive bidding on grants, potentially increasing the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead of open competition, millions are being steered toward handpicked organizations, according to sources and documents.

Conclusion: A Risky Redirection of U.S. Influence

By shifting foreign aid away from broad-based humanitarian and health programs to focus on narrow, controversial causes, the Trump administration risks undermining longstanding U.S. interests and relationships abroad. The administration’s promotion of disputed claims about white victimization in South Africa, in particular, has drawn criticism from experts and threatens to drive a wedge between the U.S. and key partners. As these policies continue to unfold, the consequences for America’s global standing and the people affected by these aid decisions remain to be seen.

Source article

Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-administration-afrikaner-south-africa-money

Trump says he would 'probably' get along with Jeffries as Speaker

Administration News — 2026-08-07 06:51:00 — thehill.com

Trump Predicts He Would “Probably” Get Along with Hakeem Jeffries if Democrats Win House Majority

President Trump, in an interview aired early Friday, predicted he would “probably” get along with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) if Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives in the upcoming midterm elections. “I’d probably get along with him very well,” Trump told Punchbowl News when asked if he could do business with Jeffries.

Trump’s Position on Working with Democrats

Trump’s comments signal a willingness to work with Democratic leadership should the balance of power shift in the lower chamber. By stating he would “probably get along with him very well,” Trump suggests a potential for bipartisan cooperation, though the remark stops short of any specific policy commitments or details on how such a relationship would function.

Context and Record

The statement comes as speculation grows over the outcome of the midterm elections and the possibility of a Democratic majority in the House. Trump’s prediction of a positive relationship with Jeffries stands in contrast to his often combative rhetoric toward Democratic leaders in the past. However, the excerpt does not include any specific false claims or disparagements directed at Jeffries or others.

Conclusion

President Trump’s assertion that he would “probably” get along with Hakeem Jeffries if Democrats take the House majority highlights his current posture toward potential bipartisan engagement. While the comment projects optimism, it remains to be seen how this prediction would play out in practice, given the contentious history between Trump and Democratic leadership. Readers should watch for further developments and statements as the political landscape evolves.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6015931-donald-trump-jeffries-midterm-relations/

Democrats Demand Answers From VA on Vets’ Struggles for Mental Healthcare — ProPublica

ProPublica — 2026-08-07 05:00:00 — www.propublica.org

Trump Administration Claims “Dramatic Improvements” at VA as Mental Health Crisis Deepens

The Trump administration has asserted that it is “solely focused on measuring VA’s success by how well it serves Veterans,” with a spokesperson claiming that this “commonsense approach has led to dramatic improvements for Veterans, families, caregivers, and survivors across the country.” This defense comes as more than 60 House Democrats demand answers about the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) increasingly strained mental healthcare system under President Donald Trump’s second administration.

Worsening Shortages and Veteran Impact

Despite the administration’s claims of improvement, a recent ProPublica investigation and congressional inquiries highlight a starkly different reality. The VA’s mental health workforce has been shrinking at an alarming rate, with hundreds of psychologists and psychiatrists leaving and not being replaced. As a result, veterans are facing longer wait times, reduced access to care, and overburdened providers. Some veterans have reported being shuffled among therapists who soon left the agency, while others have seen individual therapy sessions replaced with large online groups, sometimes limited to just 16 minutes per patient.

Fact-Checking the Administration’s Claims

While the Trump administration touts a record number of completed mental healthcare appointments and lowered wait times, the evidence from inside the VA tells a different story. Exit surveys from departing mental health staffers describe a system that is “understaffed, burned out,” and unable to meet the needs of veterans. The number of psychologists and psychiatrists at the VA has continued to decline, with around 500 fewer in January than a year prior.

Veterans Left Behind

The consequences for veterans are severe. The VA serves 9 million veterans, a population that faces mental health challenges and suicide rates far higher than the general public. Studies show that veterans receive better care at the VA than from private providers, but only if the system is adequately staffed. As experts warn, the loss of experienced VA psychologists means “the veterans are the ones who pay the price.”

Conclusion

Despite repeated promises from President Trump’s administration to deliver “the highest quality care” to veterans, the facts on the ground show a system in crisis. The administration’s claims of improvement are contradicted by widespread staff shortages, declining morale, and growing gaps in care for those who have served. Lawmakers are now demanding transparency and urgent action to address the worsening mental health crisis among America’s veterans.

Source article

Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/democrats-veterans-affairs-doug-collins-letter-mental-health

Trump orders new 15% tariff on key material for solar panels and microchips | Trump administration

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-08-07 04:11:00 — www.theguardian.com

Trump Orders 15% Tariff on Chinese Polysilicon to Boost U.S. Chip and Solar Industries

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order imposing a new 15% tariff on imported products made of polysilicon, a key material in microchip and solar panel manufacturing that is primarily produced by China. The tariff, set to take effect on December 4, is part of a broader effort to strengthen U.S. supply chains in critical sectors such as artificial intelligence and renewable energy.

In the executive order, Trump stated: “The plan of action in ⁠this proclamation will, among other things, help ensure the commercial viability of United States production of polysilicon and its derivatives that is necessary to meet United States economic and national security requirements.” The order also sets minimum import prices for polysilicon and related products, including $21 per kilogram for polysilicon, $100 per kilogram for ingots and wafers, $0.22 per watt for solar cells, and $0.38 per watt for solar modules or panels.

The administration’s move comes amid longstanding complaints from U.S. solar manufacturers, who accuse Chinese competitors of flooding the market with cheaper products, allegedly enabled by government subsidies and efforts to circumvent existing tariffs. Trump’s order also authorizes the Commerce Department to create an incentive program for companies investing in domestic polysilicon production.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticized the new tariffs, accusing the U.S. of “overstretching the concept of national security, and abusing state power to go after Chinese businesses.” Chinese officials warned that such protectionism “seriously disrupts normal trade and economic exchanges between Chinese and US businesses, and is not in the interest of US businesses and consumers or anyone else for that matter.”

Industry Response and Economic Context

The U.S. currently has two major polysilicon factories: Hemlock Semiconductor in Michigan and Wacker Chemie’s facility in Tennessee. Industry representatives welcomed the tariff, with Corning, a Hemlock partner, saying it encourages “continued investment in US capacity and supports long-term US competitiveness.” Wacker Chemie also expressed appreciation for the administration’s engagement on supply chain resilience and national security.

Trump’s action comes as China’s exports, particularly in AI-related products, have surged, with a 23.9% year-on-year increase in July. Experts note that China’s strength in electronics, AI hardware, and other advanced manufacturing sectors continues to drive its global export market share.

Conclusion

President Trump’s decision to impose a 15% tariff on Chinese polysilicon reflects his administration’s ongoing efforts to address concerns about U.S. economic and national security vulnerabilities in critical technology sectors. While the move is praised by some domestic manufacturers, it has drawn sharp criticism from China and raised questions about the broader impact on global trade and consumer costs. As the policy takes effect, its effectiveness in bolstering U.S. industry and countering Chinese competition will be closely watched.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/07/trump-orders-tariff-solar-panels-microchips-manufacturing-ingredient