New immigration court locations throw chaos into due process : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-09-04 16:11:00 — www.npr.org

Donald Trump Casts Doubt on Immigration Court Backlog, Pushes Aggressive Deportation Tactics

The Trump administration has taken steps to overhaul the immigration court system, with a focus on reducing what it describes as a massive backlog of cases. According to a recent press release from April, the White House touted an “aggressive and successful immigration enforcement overhaul” that “extends to immigration courts.” Trump has pointed to immigration courts as an obstacle to rapid deportation and has cast doubt on the validity of the reported backlog, which currently stands at approximately 3.5 million cases.

In practice, the administration’s approach has resulted in last-minute notifications to immigrants about new in-person hearings at previously undisclosed courtroom locations, often with little or no advance notice. Attorneys and advocates warn that these tactics, which include rescheduling hearings to buildings not set up for in-person immigration court proceedings, further erode due process for immigrants—especially those without legal representation.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), part of the Justice Department, stated it is making scheduling adjustments and opening new hearing locations to handle cases in a “timely and lawful manner.” However, the lack of transparency and the failure to provide adequate notice have led to confusion and a spike in “in-absentia” deportation orders—removal orders issued when immigrants miss hearings, sometimes due to not receiving notice.

Trump’s stance, as reported, frames the courts as a barrier to swift enforcement, and his administration’s actions reflect a strategy to expedite removals, often at the expense of due process. This has contributed to record-high rates of in-absentia deportations and record-low approvals for asylum in immigration courts.

The administration’s tactics and rhetoric highlight a broader effort to reshape the immigration system, raising concerns among legal experts and advocates about fairness and transparency for those navigating the courts.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/09/04/g-s1-142042/immigration-court-hidden-tribunals

Trump moves to allow ranchers and hunters to kill gray wolves

Politics — 2026-09-04 16:48:00 — www.washingtonpost.com

President Trump Orders Rollback of Gray Wolf Protections, Siding with Ranchers Over Conservationists

President Donald Trump on Friday ordered the Interior Department to begin the process of removing endangered-species protections for gray wolves, once again intervening in a contentious debate between conservationists and ranchers. The move signals a clear shift in federal policy, prioritizing the concerns of ranchers who argue that gray wolves threaten their livestock and operations.

Trump’s directive marks a significant reversal of longstanding protections that have helped gray wolf populations recover in parts of the United States. Conservationists warn that delisting the gray wolf could jeopardize these fragile gains, potentially leading to renewed population declines. Ranchers, on the other hand, have consistently lobbied for reduced protections, claiming that wolf predation results in economic losses.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Position

While President Trump has not provided a detailed public statement in the excerpt, his order to the Interior Department is a direct expression of his administration’s stance. The action aligns with previous efforts under his leadership to roll back environmental regulations and reduce federal oversight in favor of industry and agricultural interests.

There is ongoing debate over the actual threat posed by gray wolves to ranchers. Scientific studies and wildlife experts have noted that wolf attacks on livestock are relatively rare compared to other causes of loss, such as disease or weather. Conservation groups argue that removing protections is not supported by the best available science and could undermine decades of recovery efforts.

Conclusion

President Trump’s order to remove endangered-species protections for gray wolves underscores his administration’s willingness to intervene on behalf of ranchers, even as conservationists warn of potential harm to wildlife populations. The decision highlights a broader pattern of environmental deregulation and raises questions about the balance between economic interests and conservation goals. As the process moves forward, the long-term impact on gray wolf populations and the broader ecosystem remains uncertain.

Source article

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/09/04/trump-moves-allow-ranchers-hunters-kill-gray-wolves/

Ossoff Ad Takes Collins’ Quote Out of Context

FactCheck.org — 2026-09-04 13:05:00 — www.factcheck.org

Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” Cited in Georgia Senate Race as Social Security, Health Premiums Take Center Stage

In the heated Georgia Senate race, President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” is at the heart of a contentious debate over Social Security and health insurance costs. Republican Rep. Mike Collins, in a radio interview, defended the Trump-backed tax cuts, arguing that lowering taxes would encourage people to “get off of Medicaid, get off of Social Security, get back into the workforce.” This comment has become a flashpoint in Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff’s campaign ads, which claim Collins wants to “push you off Social Security.”

Trump’s Tax Law and Social Security Solvency

The Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” is directly implicated in the current debate. According to the 2026 Social Security trustees’ report, the law will “have a substantial effect on Social Security’s financial status,” as it results in “lower levels of revenue in the future from income taxation of Social Security benefits.” This projection aligns with Ossoff’s claim that the law “accelerated Social Security’s insolvency,” a statement confirmed as accurate by the trustees’ own analysis.

Health Insurance Premiums: Trump’s Role

Ossoff’s ads also highlight Collins’ vote “with Trump to double health insurance premiums for more than a million Georgians.” This refers to Collins’ opposition to a Democratic bill that would have extended enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies. Without these subsidies, a KFF analysis projected that premiums for subsidized enrollees could more than double—a 114% increase—though the actual average increase in 2026 was 58%, as many consumers switched to higher-deductible plans or dropped coverage.

Fact-Checking the Claims

While Ossoff’s ads take some liberties by using a truncated quote from Collins and by showing images of older adults, the underlying facts about Trump’s legislation are clear. The Social Security trustees confirm that Trump’s tax law negatively impacts the program’s solvency. On health insurance, the data supports the claim that premiums rose significantly after the Trump-era subsidies expired, though not all consumers saw their costs double.

Conclusion: Trump’s Legislative Legacy Shapes Georgia Race

President Trump’s legislative record—especially the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”—is having a measurable impact on Social Security and health insurance debates in Georgia’s pivotal Senate race. Fact-checks confirm that the law has worsened Social Security’s finances and contributed to higher health insurance premiums for many Georgians. As the campaign intensifies, Trump’s policies remain at the center of the debate, with real consequences for voters’ wallets and retirement security.

Source article

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2026/09/ossoff-ad-takes-collins-quote-out-of-context/

Federal judge extends block on Trump order seeking to limit mail voting in the midterms

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-09-04 19:19:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump’s Push to Limit Mail Voting Blocked Again as False Claims Persist

A federal judge has once again blocked the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict mail voting during the midterm elections, underscoring ongoing legal and factual disputes over Trump’s efforts to change voting procedures.

Trump’s Efforts to Restrict Mail Voting

Trump has repeatedly sought to limit mail voting, despite the fact that he himself frequently uses mail ballots. His administration’s latest attempt, through an executive order, aimed to impose new restrictions on the process, including a requirement for documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. This order was quickly challenged in court and halted by federal judges, who ruled that the Constitution gives states—and, in some cases, Congress—the authority to set voting procedures, not the president.

False Claims About Mail Ballots

Trump has falsely blamed mail balloting for his 2020 election loss, spreading baseless claims of fraud. These assertions have been widely debunked, but Trump has continued to promote them as justification for his efforts to change longstanding voting procedures. Despite these claims, there is no evidence to support widespread fraud in mail voting, and Trump’s attempts to alter the system have so far been unsuccessful.

Legal Setbacks and Ongoing Litigation

After Trump issued his mail voting executive order in March, multiple lawsuits were filed by Democrats and voting rights groups. U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, appointed by President Barack Obama, placed an initial hold on the order, citing the risk of significant disenfranchisement for eligible voters if states were forced to change their systems so close to the election. The Supreme Court later overturned that hold, not on the merits of Trump’s order, but because the lawsuits were filed before the Postal Service had issued its rule on implementation. Once the rule was released, the lawsuits were refiled, and Judge Talwani extended her prohibition against the order’s implementation.

Conclusion

President Trump’s ongoing campaign to restrict mail voting has been marked by repeated legal defeats and the spread of false claims about election fraud. Despite his personal use of mail ballots, Trump continues to push for changes that courts have found unconstitutional or procedurally improper. As the legal battles continue, the facts remain unchanged: there is no evidence to support Trump’s claims about mail voting fraud, and his efforts to limit mail voting have so far failed to overcome judicial scrutiny.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/federal-judge-extends-block-on-trump-order-seeking-to-limit-mail-voting-in-the-midterms

‘Not feasible’: With ballots already in the mail, election officials say it is too late for Trump’s USPS order

Politics — 2026-09-04 13:00:00 — www.politico.com

President Donald Trump’s push to overhaul the U.S. Postal Service’s handling of mail-in ballots has once again stirred controversy and legal battles, as North Carolina becomes the first state to send out ballots for the upcoming November election.

Trump’s Executive Order and Unsubstantiated Claims

In March, Trump signed an executive order targeting mail-in voting, a process he has repeatedly alleged—without evidence—is vulnerable to widespread voter fraud. This order sought to give the federal government unprecedented control over state-run elections, requiring the Postal Service to refuse delivery of ballots from states that did not comply with new federal requirements, such as providing lists of eligible mail voters or using approved envelope designs.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Fraud Claims

Despite Trump’s frequent assertions, the excerpt makes clear that his claims of mail-in voting being a “vector for widespread voter fraud” are not supported by evidence. Election officials and experts from both parties have criticized these allegations, warning that they fuel confusion and undermine public trust in the electoral process. As noted by Ben Hovland, a former Democratic commissioner with the Election Assistance Commission, “none of these claims of voter fraud are backed up with facts,” yet they risk causing Americans to lose faith in the voting system.

Legal and Logistical Chaos

Trump’s administration has pressed the courts to allow these new rules to proceed, even as a federal judge’s order has paused their implementation. The administration recently asked the Supreme Court to lift the hold, arguing that the measures are “commonsense” protections for ballot security. However, election officials warn that enforcing such sweeping changes so close to Election Day would create chaos, administrative burdens, and the potential for widespread disenfranchisement. Critics argue that the rule’s requirements—such as last-minute changes to ballot handling and tracking—are impossible to implement in time and would not actually improve election security.

Conclusion: Undermining Confidence, Not Securing Elections

President Trump’s continued push for federal intervention in mail-in voting, based on unsubstantiated claims of fraud, has drawn bipartisan criticism and legal resistance. Election officials stress that these efforts risk sowing confusion, increasing administrative errors, and discouraging voter participation. As the courts weigh the future of Trump’s order, the central fact remains: there is no credible evidence to support the president’s repeated claims of widespread mail-in ballot fraud, and the proposed changes threaten to disrupt the very process they purport to protect.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/04/trump-mail-ballots-order-november-elections-01065234

Trump offers first comments on Lindsay Clancy case

Administration News — 2026-09-04 15:54:00 — thehill.com

President Trump Calls Lindsay Clancy Mistrial a “Horrible Tragedy”

President Trump weighed in Friday on the high-profile Lindsay Clancy murder trial after a judge declared a mistrial, marking his first public response to a case that has drawn national attention. When asked about the judge’s decision during an executive order signing ceremony, the president responded, “It’s a shame. It’s a horrible tragedy.”

Trump’s brief remarks focused on the emotional impact of the case, which has been closely followed across the country. By characterizing the outcome as both a “shame” and a “horrible tragedy,” the president signaled his awareness of the public’s concern and the gravity of the situation.

No False Claims or Attacks in Statement

In this instance, President Trump did not make any false claims, exaggerations, or disparaging remarks about individuals involved in the case. His comments, as reported, were limited to expressing sympathy and regret over the mistrial and its circumstances.

Conclusion

President Trump’s response to the Lindsay Clancy mistrial was measured and focused on the tragic nature of the case. While his statement did not include any misstatements or attacks, it underscores the national significance of the trial and the attention it has received at the highest levels of government. Readers should note that, in this instance, Trump’s remarks were straightforward and did not contain the types of distortions or falsehoods that have characterized some of his previous public statements.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6072371-trump-lindsay-clancy-trial-comments-mistrial/

Donald J. Trump: “RT @realDonaldTrumpI am pleased to report that Michael Cohen, the Prosecutio…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-09-04 11:35:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Claims Michael Cohen Has “Recanted” Testimony, Calls for Dismissal of Legal Cases

Donald Trump has asserted that Michael Cohen, described as the “Prosecution’s Star Witness and, in actuality, only Witness” in the New York State Attorney General and Manhattan District Attorney cases against him, has “fully RECANTED his testimony.” Trump claims Cohen was “pressured” and “coerced” to provide false statements and thanks Cohen for what he calls an “Act of Bravery.” Trump further demands that “any remnant of those Politically Weaponized Cases against me be immediately terminated and dismissed,” alleging that the cases were “WRONG and UNLAWFUL.” He accuses Letitia James and Alvin Bragg of breaking the law to prevent him from becoming President.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

False Claim: Cohen Has “Fully Recanted”
There is no public evidence that Michael Cohen has “fully recanted” his testimony. Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, has consistently testified against Trump in multiple legal proceedings and has not issued any statement retracting his previous testimony. Trump’s claim that Cohen was “pressured” and “coerced” to lie is not supported by any documented evidence or court filings.

Distortion of Legal Proceedings
Trump refers to the New York cases as “Politically Weaponized” and claims that the prosecutors “broke the Law” to target him. These accusations are not substantiated by any findings from the courts overseeing these cases. Both Letitia James and Alvin Bragg have pursued legal actions based on evidence reviewed by grand juries and judges, not on political motivations as Trump alleges.

Exaggeration of Cohen’s Role
Trump states that Cohen is the “only Witness” in these cases. In reality, both the Attorney General’s civil fraud case and the Manhattan DA’s criminal case have involved multiple witnesses and extensive documentary evidence beyond Cohen’s testimony.

Attacks and Unsubstantiated Allegations

Trump’s statement includes direct attacks on Letitia James and Alvin Bragg, accusing them of illegal conduct without providing evidence. He also characterizes the entire legal process as an effort to prevent his presidential ambitions, a claim that has not been corroborated by any independent investigation or court ruling.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s latest statement repeats several false and unsubstantiated claims regarding the legal cases against him in New York. There is no evidence that Michael Cohen has recanted his testimony or that prosecutors have acted unlawfully. Trump’s repeated attacks on the integrity of the justice system and those involved in his cases continue a pattern of public statements that distort the facts and undermine confidence in legal institutions. Readers should be aware that these claims are not supported by the available evidence or by the public record of the proceedings.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/41513

Arab diplomats fear Iran is widening the war — and there’s no way out

Donald Trump — 2026-09-04 11:01:00 — www.politico.com

Trump Downplays Iran Threat as Regional Powers Sound Alarm

Donald Trump is downplaying Iran’s threat at a time when regional powers are increasingly concerned that Iran is ramping up its activities. As the midterm elections approach, Trump’s posture toward Iran stands in stark contrast to the growing anxiety among U.S. allies in the Middle East.

Trump’s Position: Downplaying the Iran Threat

According to the report, Trump is minimizing the significance of Iran’s actions in the region. This stance comes despite mounting evidence and warnings from regional powers who fear that Iran is escalating its military and political influence. Trump’s approach suggests a lack of urgency or concern about Iran’s recent maneuvers, which many experts and foreign officials view as destabilizing.

Regional Concerns and Contradictions

While Trump continues to downplay the situation, neighboring countries and U.S. partners are voicing alarm. They argue that Iran is not only increasing its regional activities but also taking advantage of perceived U.S. disengagement. This contradiction between Trump’s dismissive attitude and the concerns of those closest to the conflict raises questions about the administration’s strategy and the potential consequences of underestimating Iran’s ambitions.

Implications for U.S. Policy and the Midterms

Trump’s posture toward Iran could have significant implications for U.S. foreign policy and the upcoming midterm elections. By downplaying the threat, Trump risks alienating key allies and undermining efforts to contain Iran’s influence. The divergence between his position and the views of regional powers highlights a critical debate over how best to address Iran’s actions and protect U.S. interests.

Conclusion

Trump’s tendency to minimize the threat posed by Iran stands in sharp contrast to the concerns of regional powers who fear escalation. As the midterms approach, this disconnect could shape both U.S. foreign policy and the political landscape at home. The facts suggest that Trump’s downplaying of Iran’s activities is at odds with the reality on the ground, leaving allies and analysts questioning the wisdom of his approach.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/04/iran-escalation-us-midterms-01065126

Trump threatens trade war if rates aren't cut after strong jobs report

Administration News — 2026-09-04 11:04:00 — thehill.com

President Trump Pressures Federal Reserve After Strong Jobs Report, Threatens Trade Action

President Trump called on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates Friday, despite a stronger-than-expected August jobs report. The president went further, threatening to cut off trade with several countries if the central bank does not reduce rates.

Jobs Report Exceeds Expectations

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that U.S. employers added 162,000 jobs last month, a figure significantly higher than the 53,000 many analysts had anticipated. This robust jobs growth typically signals a healthy economy and would not usually prompt calls for lower interest rates.

Trump’s Pressure on the Fed

Despite the positive economic news, President Trump urged the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates. He linked his demand to the jobs report, suggesting that the central bank’s current policy was not sufficient, and escalated his rhetoric by threatening to cut off trade with several countries if the Fed did not act.

Fact-Check: Trump’s Claims and Threats

The president’s threat to cut off trade as leverage against the Federal Reserve is notable. The Federal Reserve operates independently of the executive branch, and its decisions are not typically influenced by threats related to international trade. Furthermore, the strong jobs report undermines the argument for immediate rate cuts, as lower rates are generally used to stimulate a lagging economy, not one showing unexpected strength.

Conclusion

President Trump’s call for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, paired with threats to international trade, stands in contrast to the positive economic data released Friday. The president’s statements highlight his ongoing efforts to pressure the central bank, even when economic indicators suggest a different course of action. This episode underscores Trump’s willingness to use aggressive rhetoric and threats, even in the face of facts that challenge his position.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/business/6071563-trump-trade-war-fed-interest-rates-august-jobs-report/

What to know about mail-in voting and Trump’s order : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-09-03 15:48:00 — www.npr.org

Trump’s Push to Restrict Mail-In Voting Faces Legal and Factual Challenges

President Trump directed the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to implement new restrictions on mail-in voting for the midterm election, claiming the move was necessary to stop illegal voting by non-U.S. citizens. This directive, issued through a March executive order, has become the subject of a heated legal battle and widespread scrutiny.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Trump’s justification for the USPS plan centers on preventing illegal voting by non-citizens. However, many studies and audits cited in the reporting show that illegal voting by non-U.S. citizens is “incredibly rare.” This directly contradicts the premise of Trump’s order and highlights a pattern of exaggeration regarding the prevalence of voter fraud.

The USPS Plan and Its Impact

Under the Trump administration’s plan, state election officials would be required to provide lists of mail-in voters’ names and addresses to USPS and include specific barcodes on ballot envelopes. USPS has stated it would not deliver ballots for election officials who do not comply. However, a federal judge in Boston has temporarily blocked key parts of the plan, meaning voting by mail remains available to eligible voters as usual for the upcoming midterms.

Concerns Over Disruption and Implementation

Election experts warn that it is too late to implement the USPS plan without causing significant disruptions. A whistleblower report alleges that USPS has not properly tested the online system intended to collect voter information and that new verification policies could prevent many voters from receiving their ballots in time—or at all.

Legal Arguments and Ongoing Court Battles

While USPS claims its revised rule is simply an effort to regulate mail, challengers argue the agency lacks authority to control voting by mail. The Supreme Court has ruled on a procedural aspect of the case but has not yet addressed the legality of Trump’s order or the USPS plan itself.

Conclusion

President Trump’s attempt to restrict mail-in voting is based on claims of widespread illegal voting by non-citizens—claims that are not supported by available evidence. As the courts continue to weigh the legality of the administration’s actions, key parts of the plan remain blocked, and mail-in voting is expected to proceed as normal for the midterms. This episode underscores the importance of fact-checking official claims and the ongoing debate over voting rights and election integrity.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/09/03/nx-s1-5955614/trump-mail-in-voting-ruling-court-usps