|
The unusual order came Wednesday afternoon in response to the Trump administration's request for immediate permission to deploy troops throughout the city in response to immigration protests.  The Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon asked the litigants in the challenge to President Donald Trump’s effort to deploy the National Guard to Illinois to file supplemental briefs addressing the interpretation of the law on which Trump relied in his Oct. 4 memorandum calling up the National Guard. Trump cited efforts “to disrupt the faithful enforcement of Federal law” by “violent groups” that “have sought to impede the deportation and removal of criminal aliens through violent demonstrations, intimidation, and sabotage of Federal operations.” Based on his determination that “the regular forces of the United States are not sufficient to ensure the laws of the United States are faithfully executed, including in Chicago,” he “call[ed] into Federal service at least 300 members of the Illinois National Guard.” The state of Illinois and the city of Chicago went to federal court in Chicago, seeking to block Trump’s deployment of the National Guard. U.S. District Judge April Perry on Oct. 9 issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Trump “from ordering the federalization and deployment of the National Guard of the United States within Illinois” for two weeks; she later extended that order. Perry explained in an opinion accompanying her order that, among other things, the Trump administration had “made no attempt to rely on the regular forces before resorting to federalization of the National Guard,” and it had not contended “(nor is there any evidence to suggest) that the President is incapable with the regular forces of executing the laws.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the portion of Perry’s order barring the deployment of the National Guard. That prompted the Trump administration to come to the Supreme Court on Oct. 17, asking the justices to intervene. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that Perry’s order “cause[s] irreparable harm to the Executive Branch by countermanding the President’s authority as Commander in Chief, jeopardizing the lives and safety of DHS officers, and preventing the President and the Secretary of War from taking reasonable and lawful measures to protect federal personnel from the violent resistance that has persisted in the Chicago area for several months.” In a brief opposing the government’s request, the city and state urged the court to leave Perry’s order in place. Illinois Solicitor General Jane Notz told the justices that “the unnecessary deployment of military troops, untrained for local policing, will escalate tensions and undermine the ordinary law enforcement activities of state and local entities, which would need to divert resources to maintain safety and order.” Although the court had directed the challengers to respond in just three days, suggesting that it might act quickly, nine days passed before the justices issued an order in the case – but they did not rule on the government’s request. Instead, they ordered both the Trump administration and the challengers to file new briefs discussing whether, for purposes of the federal law on which Trump relied to call up the National Guard – which allows him to do so when (among other things) he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States” – “the term ‘regular forces’ refers to the regular forces of the United States military, and, if so, how that interpretation affects the operation” of the law. The new briefs, the court said, should be no more than 15 pages long and should be filed by Nov. 10, with 10-page reply briefs to follow a week later – a much less expedited timeframe than the court had set for the original briefing.
0 Comments
About 1.2 million veterans are enrolled now, according to the National Council on Aging. More than 20,000 military families, 213,000 National Guard and Reserve members, and more than 1 million veterans, rely on such benefits  “Stop making our food a talking point. Make it a priority.”  “We would not eat.”
That is how disabled U.S. Navy veteran Juan Saro described a life without the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, which he and more than 40 millions of Americans—around 1-in-8 Americans—rely on for food assistance. That includes seniors, disabled individuals, and families with children. On Nov. 1, the distribution of SNAP benefits are expected to stop because of the shutdown and a ceasing of funding through the federal government even as money could be allocated towards the program. Some families are already planning for a month without grocery money. One Onion SNAP is his only way for Saro to keep food on the table for himself and two boys he cares for. Saro survived a brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from his time in the Navy. He later worked as a sixth-grade teacher. But COVID-related health problems made it impossible to stay in the classroom. The veteran now lives on fixed disability payments from the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA). By mid-month, the money runs out. Food runs out. SNAP becomes the difference between dinner and nothing at all. “SNAP is everything, Without SNAP, we would go hungry. We would not eat. We would not have food on the table. The boys would not have what they need.” Saro said he once opened his refrigerator and saw one onion. He tried to stretch food for as long as possible. Experts say that many veterans who qualify never apply, even though age, disability and fixed incomes put them at higher risks for hunger. “I try not to let them see the struggle," Saro said. "They lost their mother. I want them to focus on school. I want their lives to feel normal.” ‘We Adapt. We Overcome. ’Saro says Sen. John Ossoff (D-GA) called him personally after hearing his story. He appreciated the conversation, but adds that phones do not fill stomachs. “We adapt. We overcome. We persevere," Saro said. "That is what veterans do. But this should not be happening in America. Not in the richest country in the world.” He has one message for Congress. “Stop making our food a talking point. Make it a priority.” In the meantime, he is preparing for the worst. If November 1 comes with nothing in his account, he says the reality is brutally simple: “We would not eat.” SNAP Crisis Hits Veterans Veterans groups and food banks are bracing for a surge. Fingers have been pointed in Washington. The Department of Agriculture blames Senate Democrats while Democrats say the Trump administration has the legal power to keep benefits flowing. “We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats," a USDA spokesperson told Military.com. "Continue to hold out for the far-left wing of the party or reopen the government so mothers, babies and the most vulnerable among us can receive timely WIC [Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children] and SNAP allotments.” The VA says it can't answer SNAP-related questions, referring all inquiries back to USDA. The Pentagon would not confirm how many troops or military families receive SNAP. A Pentagon official stated “Our service members will always be our priority, and we are grateful to the many dedicated veteran and military service organizations that provide our troops support.” Stepping Up The Navy was the only service at press time to respond to a request for comment on the expiring food assistance. A spokesperson said the shutdown affects every branch and told families to use existing support programs. The Navy sent a link (https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/display-news/Article/4319360/fy26-lapse-of-appropriations-department-of-the-navy-resources-for-sailors-marin/) to a resource page for sailors and their families during the shutdown, including help with food, housing, counseling, child care, commissary updates and emergency financial aid: The Armed Services YMCA said it is already seeing early surges. Hot spots include Fort Hood, San Diego, Norfolk, Alaska and other high-cost bases. Some sites moved from twice-monthly distributions to weekly food pickups. Emergency financial help is being triaged for families facing eviction and utility shutoffs. Democrats: Trump Has the Money Senate Democrats say USDA has the legal authority to continue SNAP during the shutdown. Senator Patty Murray called it “outrageous” and accused President Trump of trying to starve Americans by refusing to tap the contingency fund. Her office said SNAP has billions in reserve funds that can legally cover November benefits. Nonprofits are bracing for long lines, shortages, and parents skipping meals. But the number is impossible to measure since Congress let lapse a requirement that ICE report how many pregnant, postpartum and nursing immigrants are in custody.  Cary López Alvarado, of Hawthorne, California, was nine months pregnant when she was arrested by immigration officials alongside her husband, an immigrant from Guatemala. Alvarado was held overnight but was never sent to a detention facility: After taking her into custody, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) learned she was a U.S. citizen.
Immediately after her release, she began to experience sharp pains in her stomach, according to a claim she filed against the federal government. She gave birth a few days later. Angie Rodriguez, an immigrant from Colombia, was taken into ICE custody following a routine check-in with immigration officials in July, and soon after found out she was pregnant. At the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center where she was held, Rodriguez could hardly bring herself to eat the small meals that the detention facility served because of how they looked and smelled, and her only other option was buying processed food like instant noodles and chips. Rodriguez went on to miscarry while in custody, according to a lawsuit she filed against the federal government. Antonia Aguilar Maldonano, a mother of two from El Salvador, was arrested by ICE on her way to work and detained at the Kandiyohi County Jail in Minnesota for almost a month. Her youngest child is 22 months old and still nursing; he has acid reflux and an allergy to other forms of milk. The jail was not equipped to house someone who was nursing, said Gloria Contreras Edin, her lawyer: It did not have a breast pump when Aguilar Maldonado arrived, forcing her to use her hands to massage milk out until the facility was able to buy a pump. Lawyers successfully argued for her release on bond — $10,000, paid for by members of her church — while the government makes the case that she be deported. A Biden-era policy restricts ICE from arresting or detaining immigrants who are pregnant, postpartum or nursing, except in extreme circumstances. While President Donald Trump has not formally rescinded the policy, it’s clear from lawsuits, news reports and advocates for immigrants who are detained that it’s not being followed. Quantifying the exact number of pregnant, postpartum or nursing immigrants in custody has become impossible: This March, Congress let lapse a requirement that the administration report twice a year on how many of these immigrants are being held in immigration facilities. Since the fall of 2019, Congress had required the Department of Homeland Security to publicly report the count every six months and include “detailed justification” for every single detained immigrant who was pregnant, postpartum or nursing. While the agency said in a statement in August that pregnant immigrants are receiving sufficient care in custody, medical professionals say the conditions in these facilities can heighten the risk for complications. Limited food can impact nutrition at a vulnerable time; access to medical appointments is spotty and often not aligned with standards of care; and pregnant, postpartum and nursing detainees also face the stress of arrest and separation from their families The impact of arrests and detention In 2021, following public outcry against the first Trump administration’s immigration policies, the Biden administration directed ICE not to detain pregnant, postpartum or nursing people except in “exceptional circumstances” — they are a national security threat or pose immediate harm to themselves or other people. Those who are detained are supposed to be held in facilities suited to appropriate health care. ICE-employed medical professionals are supposed to provide weekly updates on those detainees to relevant agency directors. The ICE Health Service Corps is also supposed to keep consistent records of all pregnant, postpartum and nursing detainees, providing monthly updates to the organization’s leadership. Since returning to the White House, Trump has not formally rescinded that policy, but administration officials argued in court that he had done so implicitly through a sweeping anti-immigration executive order that supercharged immigration enforcement. A federal judge refuted that argument, but on its website, ICE says the policy is “not reflective of current practice.” “We’re seeing more pregnant women detained again after not seeing much of that, at least not in ICE detention,” said Amanda Heffernan, a longtime nurse-midwife and professor of midwifery at Seattle University. Rebecca Cassler, an attorney at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said her organization’s pro bono program has seen an increase in cases of detained pregnant, postpartum and nursing people. She says no one outside ICE really knows how many, but it’s enough to make her “very concerned.” Though the federal government has not made public how many pregnant people have been detained, Democratic lawmakers have published multiple investigations documenting known cases. One report, published this summer by the office of Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, identified 14 credible cases of pregnant women being mistreated in detention facilities. The report included a description of pregnant women sleeping on cell floors, one detainee being told to “just drink water” when needing medical support, and another miscarrying alone after days of bleeding. ICE has disputed the report. “Pregnant women receive regular prenatal visits, mental health services, nutritional support, and accommodations aligned with community standards of care. Detention of pregnant women is rare and has elevated oversight and review. No pregnant woman has been forced to sleep on the floor,” ICE said in a statement on its website. A September 18 letter signed by 29 Democratic senators and addressed to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem directed federal officials to clarify just how many pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding people are being detained, how many have been deported and what health care is being made available to them. DHS has not acknowledged receipt, said a spokesperson for Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington who organized the letter. “We do not know how many pregnant women are in ICE custody, whether U.S. citizen babies have been born in ICE custody, and what provisions have been made for mothers’ and children’s health, safety, and wellbeing,” the senators wrote. The Women’s Refugee Commission, an advocacy group, is seeking records from Homeland Security pertaining to pregnant, postpartum or nursing individuals who have been detained. It recently launched its own independent tracker, encouraging health providers, lawyers and family members to submit information about pregnant people who have been detained. The commission said it’s too early to provide an accurate count from its tracker. Zain Lakhani, a lawyer and director of migrant rights and justice for the commission, said credible reports of pregnant people being detained suggest a frequency higher than ICE’s policy would suggest. “It would be shocking that we would be able to have this level of detained pregnant people under the guidance,” she said. “We are seeing just this shocking number of detained postpartum and pregnant women.” Workers helping integrate deported immigrants in Honduras told researchers from the Women’s Refugee Commission that nursing women who were deported had not received enough food and water to continue lactating. “They arrive with hardly any milk — or milk that looks like water — and this affects the babies’ weight,” one worker said, according to a report published by the organization. The impact of arrests and detention By the time Aguilar Maldonado left the jail, her breast milk had started to dry up, Contreras Edin said. She is particularly worried about the impact of detention on her children, who were not with her and now follow her wherever she goes, including to the bathroom. Her boyfriend has been deported; she is asking a judge to let her leave voluntarily — a process that has fewer legal penalties than being deported — so she and her children can follow him. “Her children were traumatized and her youngest was especially traumatized,” Contreras Edin said. “That bond was broken during detention and that left a permanent impression on her children.” There is no way to ethically research how detention specifically may affect pregnancy outcomes, including whether it could increase the possibility of miscarriage, said Dr. Carolyn Sufrin, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins University who studies the reproductive health of incarcerated women. But evidence does show that physical and psychological strain — the kind people can suffer while detained — threatens the health of a pregnancy and can mean greater risk of preterm birth. “I’m very concerned because of the conditions we’ve already heard about that could be increasing the risks of adverse outcomes,” Sufrin said. “I’m very concerned about the outcomes for these moms as well as for the outcomes for their babies.” ICE did not respond to a request for comment on the conditions or available accommodations for pregnant, postpartum or nursing immigrants. Alvarado, who is seeking $1 million following her arrest, citing “the unconstitutional conduct, unlawful arrest, and the tortious conduct of Border Patrol and ICE agents,” said her daughter is healthy and growing. But she’s still dealing with the aftermath of her detention. Footage of the arrest shows federal agents holding her hands behind her — despite guidance advising that officers generally not use physical restraints on pregnant people and that, if they do, they should keep a pregnant person’s hands in front. Her husband has now been deported, and Alvarado has no income. She’s watching her savings dwindle and relying on her family to help care for her little girl. She said she was unsure if she’d have to pick up multiple jobs to make ends meet — and if so, who would be able to care for her infant. She remembers the terror she felt while in government custody. “Every time I see a news or video, it does rewind in my head,” she said. “It does get me very emotional, seeing stuff like that.” Victoria Petty, an attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area who is representing Rodriguez — the woman who suffered a miscarriage in detention — said that she first connected with her client’s husband in late August, about a month after his wife’s detention. He had left Petty a voicemail and text explaining that his wife was pregnant in a detention center and that he was really worried about her. Days later, he called again. “He’s crying on the other line, and he’s like, ‘She had a miscarriage. I don’t know what to do. She’s in the hospital. Help,’” Petty recalled. Rodriguez described in court records being “unignorably hungry” inside the Bakersfield, California, detention facility and lacking prenatal health care and education for weeks after her pregnancy was confirmed. Eventually, she began to see brown discharge and was taken to an off-site hospital where, days later, health care providers confirmed she had miscarried. Petty moved quickly to file a lawsuit claiming unconstitutional detention. Court documents show that upon release from the hospital, Rodriguez was placed in medical isolation at the ICE detention center. “It was very scary. She was in pain. So after this really traumatic experience, and her going to the hospital and confirming that they did not see the fetus on the ultrasound — after all of that, they brought her back to the detention center and put her in medical isolation,” Petty said, adding that her client was distraught. Petty said it’s hard to determine whether detention conditions caused or contributed to Rodriguez’ miscarriage, a very wanted first pregnancy. But, she said, it’s important to consider the stress of being suddenly detained in a van — her client is from Colombia; kidnappings and murders have left lasting scars on the Latin American nation — along with the strain and lack of food options in detention. “These are the conditions that she was in when she was pregnant. And we cannot rule out that having been under that level of stress and fear and having that little care contributed to her pregnancy loss,” Petty said. Heffernan, who has worked with several immigrants who were detained while pregnant, said she has seen pregnant immigrants get a few small accommodations: being placed in a lower bunk instead of the top bunk for sleep or getting extra milk with their meals and sometimes an extra sandwich or snack before bedtime. Medical care, she said, can be “very haphazard and spotty,” with prenatal appointments often not happening on schedule. “You do see people getting a prenatal visit here and there, but not in a timely fashion, and not according to the standard of care for people that are outside,” Heffernan said. “For instance, in a couple of people that I’ve been in contact with recently, one had been in detention for several months and had had no prenatal care at all. Another had had one visit.” Pregnant immigrants are also more vulnerable to more severe cases of COVID-19, flu and other illnesses, which spread quickly in crowded places like detention centers. There is an extensive list of best practices for detained pregnant and postpartum people, Sufrin said, including but not limited to regular access to comprehensive physical and mental health care, nutrition, the ability to exercise and adequate housing. But from a medical standpoint, she said, “The best practices would be not to detain them.” A data broker owned by the country’s major airlines, including Delta, American Airlines, and United, collected US travelers’ domestic flight records, sold access to them to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and then as part of the contract told CBP to not reveal where the data came from, according to internal CBP documents The data includes passenger names, their full flight itineraries, and financial details.  CBP, a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), says it needs this data to support state and local police to track people of interest’s air travel across the country, in a purchase that has alarmed civil liberties experts. The documents reveal for the first time in detail why at least one part of DHS purchased such information, and comes after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detailed its own purchase of the data. The documents also show for the first time that the data broker, called the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), tells government agencies not to mention where it sourced the flight data from. “The big airlines—through a shady data broker that they own called ARC—are selling the government bulk access to Americans' sensitive information, revealing where they fly and the credit card they used,” senator Ron Wyden said in a statement. ARC is owned and operated by at least eight major US airlines, other publicly released documents show. The company’s board of directors include representatives from Delta, Southwest, United, American Airlines, Alaska Airlines, JetBlue, and European airlines Lufthansa and Air France, and Canada’s Air Canada. More than 240 airlines depend on ARC for ticket settlement services. ARC’s other lines of business include being the conduit between airlines and travel agencies, finding travel trends in data with other firms like Expedia, and fraud prevention, according to material on ARC’s YouTube channel and website. The sale of US fliers’ travel information to the government is part of ARC’s Travel Intelligence Program (TIP). A Statement of Work included in the newly obtained documents, which describes why an agency is buying a particular tool or capability, says CBP needs access to ARC’s TIP product “to support federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to identify persons of interest’s US domestic air travel ticketing information.” These documents wee obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The new documents also show ARC asking CBP to “not publicly identify vendor, or its employees, individually or collectively, as the source of the Reports unless the Customer is compelled to do so by a valid court order or subpoena and gives ARC immediate notice of same.” The Statement of Work says that TIP can show a person’s paid intent to travel and tickets purchased through travel agencies in the US and its territories. The data from the Travel Intelligence Program (TIP) will provide “visibility on a subject’s or person of interest’s domestic air travel ticketing information as well as tickets acquired through travel agencies in the U.S. and its territories,” the documents say. They add that this data will be “crucial” in both administrative and criminal cases. “The court’s decision confirms that key members of our community should never have been criminalized simply for being here and living their lives in peace. This ruling restores a sense of safety and dignity to people who call Iowa home.”  Iowa cannot enforce a 2024 state statute that makes it a crime for a person previously deported to reenter the state, a federal appeals court said in a decision issued Thursday. The statute, passed by Iowa’s GOP-dominated Legislature in 2024 and signed into law by Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, also a Republican, makes it illegal under state law for noncitizens to reenter the country after having previously been removed or excluded. Iowa judges could order deportation or impose a sentence of up to 10 years in prison for refusal to comply with deportation. This statute, which would entirely bypass immigration enforcement by the federal government, conflicts with immigration-enforcement discretion Congress gives to federal officials and may not be enforced by the state, a three-judge panel of the St. Louis-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said in its decision handed down Thursday. The Court of Appeals, however, directed the trial court to narrow the scope of its preliminary injunction to address whether it was a “universal injunction” or only relief to the plaintiffs and to decide whether an immigration organization has standing as a plaintiff to sue for injuries to itself. The decision, written by U.S. Circuit Judge Duane Benton, a George W. Bush appointee, was joined by Senior Circuit Judge Morris Arnold, a George H.W. Bush appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Jonathan Kobes, a Donald Trump appointee. “While we are disappointed with the Eighth Circuit’s ruling today, we are not done working to uphold Iowa’s laws,” Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird said in a statement Thursday. But Bird acknowledged that under President Trump, the immigration landscape has changed. “Under the Biden Administration, every state became a border state. Now, President Trump has delivered on his promise to close the borders and has shown his support for Iowa’s right to do the same in our state.” Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, Jane Doe and Elizabeth Roe sued the state in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in May 2024. Doe and Roe are noncitizen immigrants living in Iowa who claim to be harmed by the state’s law. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice provides legal services and advocacy on immigration issues. The U.S. Justice Department filed a similar suit during the Biden administration, but it was later withdrawn after President Trump came into office. “This is a tremendous relief for thousands of Iowa families,” said Erica Johnson, founding executive director of Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice (Iowa MMJ), the organization that brought the lawsuit. “The court’s decision confirms that key members of our community should never have been criminalized simply for being here and living their lives in peace. This ruling restores a sense of safety and dignity to people who call Iowa home.” In holding that Iowa’s statute is preempted by federal immigration regulation, the Eighth Circuit pointed out that while an Iowa state judge “shall” order a person returned his or her country of origin, without exception, federal law gives federal officials discretion about the removal of such persons in cases such as those who express fear of returning to the country designated in an order of removal. “The effect of [Iowa’s statute], even as Bird interprets it on appeal, is to deliver aliens to the Des Moines International Airport with an order to leave the United States for the country from which they entered or attempted to enter, or face further criminal penalties for refusing to obey,” Benton wrote. “The effect of the act is for illegal aliens not just to leave Iowa but to remove themselves from the United States entirely.” Iowa’s statute thus “violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the federal government,” he wrote Thursday.
U.S. Secret Service agents have arrested Michigan resident and accused the former U.S. Air Force airman of threatening to kill President Donald Trump over the administration's LGBTQ+ policies  U.S. Secret Service agents have arrested a Michigan man and accused the former U.S. Air Force airman of threatening to kill President Donald Trump over the administration's LGBTQ+ policies, according to federal court records unsealed Thursday. Joshua Levi Young, 21, of Ishpeming, is accused of issuing several threats since January that called for the execution of Trump, including posts that read "Death to Trump," "Death To POTUS" and "Kill the dictator." The case unsealed Thursday charged Young with threatening to kill and injure the president, and transmitting an interstate threat, both five-year felonies. U.S. Magistrate Judge Maarten Vermaat ordered Young held without bond after a detention hearing Thursday in Marquette. Young's lawyer, Elizabeth LaCosse, did not respond immediately to a message seeking comment. The charges are the latest filed amid an increase of violent antigovernment extremism in Michigan and beyond that has included two assassination attempts targeting Trump since last year. Other threats include a former member of the Michigan Army National Guard who was charged in May after prosecutors said he tried to attack a military base in Warren on behalf of the Islamic State. The investigation started with an anonymous tip in mid-September that Young had threatened Trump on Facebook. The next day, Secret Service investigators searched social media and found several threats posted on Instagram, Facebook and X this year. "I am going to kill Trump raise him from the dead and kill him again," one Instagram post read. "Death to Trump." Public records led to Young as the author of the posts, Special Agent Adam Rogers wrote in the criminal filing. The agent and an Ishpeming Police sergeant questioned Young, who served in the Air Force from 2022-24, at his home Oct. 7. "When asked why he made the comments documented in the open-source research, Young stated 'I don’t like what he’s doing,' referencing Trump," the agent wrote. "Young continued to explain he is a gay/non-binary person who aligns with the LGBTQ community and is angered by the administration’s policies on LGBTQ rights." Young also said he was frustrated and saddened by the administration's handling of immigration rights. "I hurt when others hurt," Young said and admitted to authoring the posts, according to the court filing. "Young continued by stating the administration's 'lack of assistance and protecting the American people and protecting the elites' frustrates him," the agent wrote. After the interview, investigators searched his home and seized Young's electronic devices. Soon after, an employee at a Veterans' Affairs clinic in Ishpeming called police, saying Young entered the clinic and asked for legal help because he was "considering fleeing the country." "The employee stated that her understanding based on the conversation she inferred that Young was looking to speak to an attorney to determine what countries did not extradite to the United States," the agent wrote. The U.S. Defense Department and the Department of Veteran Affairs are making it difficult, and sometimes impossible for veterans to get infertility treatments, according to lawsuits filed previously in Boston and New York  Federal officials and lawmakers don’t deny that fraud exists due to some service members illegally gaming the system of benefits they receive through the government. But the numbers aren’t as drastic or obscene as some recent reports have indicated, according to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA).
Fraud, waste and abuse has for years been a concern for the VA and affiliated committees within Congress going back years, in terms of veterans being both victims and perpetrators of such crimes. As of April 2022, the VA reported that veterans aged 65 and older who received pension benefits totaled 160,270 and were the age group most often susceptible to crimes. Recent reports suggest, in accordance with government data, that veteran disability claims have exploded and put American taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars to resolve such disputes. House Committee on Veterans Affairs Chairman Mike Bost (R-IL) remains committed to the VA being “a proper steward of taxpayer dollars,” which includes working with VA Secretary Doug Collins and the Trump administration to guarantee that the care and compensation benefits veterans receive accurately reflect the injuries they sustained as a result of their service. “Veterans earn their VA benefits through honorable service in uniform, and an overwhelming majority of veterans bring that same sense of honor and duty when it comes to seeking their benefits and care,” Bost said. “Whether the root of the problem is bad actors or bureaucratic dysfunction at VA, fraud, waste and abuse unfortunately exist in every federal program. “Under my leadership, we have worked hard to find ways to fight bureaucratic waste, cut through the red tape, and implement commonsense reforms to the VA disability claims process to ensure that veterans and their families receive their benefits.” Reasons For Receiving Benefits VA compensation for about 6.9 million disabled veterans this year will be subsidized by U.S. taxpayers footing the bills for an approximate $193 billion total, according to an investigation by the Washington Post earlier this month. But not all money is allegedly going where it should. The Post reported that the ability to work is supposedly hindered by more innocuous reasons such as hair loss, jock itch and toenail fungus—all of which don’t typically cause impairment. About 556,000 veterans receive disability benefits for eczema, 332,000 for hemorrhoids, 110,000 for benign skin growths, 81,000 for acne and 74,000 for varicose veins, they reported, citing the most recently available figures from the VA. To the contrary, about 10,900 service members who’ve suffered “severe” or “penetrating” brain injuries since 2000 are eligible for benefits and fewer than 1,700 veterans who lost limbs in Afghanistan and Iraq receive disability payments, per the Post. ‘Misleading’ The Public The report and data mentioned within the Post report was strongly refuted by the VA. VA spokesperson Pete Kasperowicz told Military.com that the report was published by “out-of-touch liberal activists peddling [a] garbage story.” “America’s veterans earned their VA benefits, and it should be easier—not harder—to get them,” Kasperowicz said. “Under President Trump, we are improving VA so it’s faster and more convenient for veterans to get what our nation owes them.” Asked if taxpayers are being left on the hook to pay some of these funds, he said the Washington Post “is trying to mislead the public by citing a few documented instances of fraud in which the perpetrators were convicted of crimes, as proof that many veterans are cheating the system.” “When VA sees signs of fraud or suspicious behavior, it works with the appropriate law enforcement authorities to protect taxpayers, veterans, families, caregivers and survivors,” Kasperowicz added. Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) also criticized the Post piece, writing a letter Oct. 7 to the publication's editors that it "is not just a disservice to veterans—it is a dangerously misleading piece that feeds into damaging stereotypes and ignores both the moral and legal foundations of the Department of Veterans Affairs disability system." In June of this year, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced it was increasing its investigations to combat fraudsters and others exploiting veterans “to access their VA benefits for personal gain.” “Predatory claims sharks are individuals that deploy wide-ranging fraud schemes to get veterans to pay them for assistance in filing VA benefits claims, when they are often unaccredited to do so,” OIG said. “They frequently offer to help obtain or increase a veteran’s benefits, while asking for direct payment or a portion of the veteran’s benefits awarded in exchange.” They continue to work with law enforcement partners as part of the OIG-led “Operation NO SCAM” endeavor to pursue active cases nationwide. Murky Digital Risk Environment Jordan Burris, head of public sector at identity verification and fraud prevention at company Socure, told Military.com that by and large veterans will play by the rules and follow laws, translating to fraud not directly correlating with integrity but more broadly questions about the controls that have been put in place kept up with today’s digital risk environment. “There’s always been this underpinning, or this thread or discussion, related to fraud in veterans’ benefits—specifically around claims and eligibility and understanding whether or not they should have received the benefit in question and how the process is always managed,” Burris said. “The piece that I always like to highlight is that it isn’t only about the content of the claim, while that is an important aspect of it; it’s also about the integrity of the identity that is being asserted for that veteran across the entire life cycle,” he added. Burris served across the Trump and Biden administrations as chief of staff in the White House Office of the CIO (Chief Information Officer). He said that everything from the initial intake to the representation, to every time a veteran’s account has changed, and ultimately to disbursement, should be taken into account. “Even if you look over the last two years, from 2024 until now, there have been instances that have been highlighted, discussions and areas where the controls and the ways in which we’ve managed this today across the country have been lax and they have not been up to the task of better protecting the identity information for veterans,” he added. That in turn, of course, impacts their ability to receive the benefits that they duly deserve. Socure’s major efforts on behalf of clients involve two main objectives: verifying identities and then combatting any identity fraud that occurs. That is becoming increasingly more difficult in an age where fraud of all kinds—in not just the VA but in banking, financial technology, cryptocurrency or gaming—is becoming more complex. In the VA’s case, Burris said one thing bad actors attempt is getting access to veterans’ information or the benefit itself from the adversary. “You can make the adversaries to be China, Russia, North Korea, a number of them today that essentially are seeking to take these benefits and use them for other nefarious-type purposes,” he said. Victims And Perpetrators Burris said that while the figures and narrative painted by the Washington Post could be accurate, there’s a different way to look at fraud and how it occurs. That includes finding out whether individuals are committing fraud themselves, part of more strategic schemes, or if veterans are simply playing by the rules but are being impersonated and taken advantage of by other people or groups like hackers or those with greater tech expertise. The government takes responsibility in these matters, too, he added. A push to improve the underlying infrastructure may in turn better the way in which individuals’ identities are verified or proven; whether or not they are applying things that would be more phishing-resistant types of authentication every time they access platforms. Sometimes the issue is a basic one, like an agency not checking and confirming whether a bank account that received a direct deposit actually belongs to a veteran. He said the solution calls for what he describes as “modern identity rails” that protect veterans from being victimized. That involves improving what can be measured, like pushing companies and organizations to publish identity risk KPIs and better assess rate structures. “Pair those with basic practices that are used today within the payment integrity circles within [the] federal government to get better insight into where things are not working, such that you can actually have more informed decisions, discussions around what could be done to make improvements," he said. "And then, of course, look across the broader scam economy.” A U.S. district court judge in Austin found the law violated First Amendment rights.  A federal judge has permanently blocked parts of a Texas law that required vendors to rate books for sexual content before selling them to schools, ruling the law unconstitutional. The judge found the law, known as the Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources (READER) Act, violates the First Amendment because it compels speech, is overly vague, and constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint. The ruling permanently enjoined the rating system provisions, but did not block a separate law (HB 183) that allows parents to review library materials and file complaints. Key details of the ruling:
"[Kirk] has no long record of service to USAFA, What he does have is long record of racist and sexist statements, though"  Efforts by some encouraging the U.S. Air Force Academy to posthumously honor former conservative commentator and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk were rejected on Friday, according to the nonprofit membership organization Academy's Association of Graduates (AOG).
Kirk was fatally shot in the neck September 10 while speaking to about 3,000 attendees at Utah Valley University during a Turning Point USA event. The assassination spawned both massive outpourings of support as well as dissention, based largely on political views. "We are grateful to all who have taken the time to reach out by phone and email, and to those who attended today’s meeting in person, to share their views," the AOG said Friday in a statement. "The AOG Board, serving as the governing body of the Association, took the thoughtful feedback received into account. "The Honorary Member and honorary degree motions concerning Mr. Kirk were withdrawn." The AOG said that several hundred Air Force Academy graduates, parents and family members had contacted the association since Wednesday to share perspectives on two motions included among others during the Oct. 17 Board of Directors meeting. One of the motions recommended that the U.S. Air Force Academy seek the authority to posthumously award an honorary degree to Kirk, who was serving as a presidential appointee to the Academy Board of Visitors at the time of his death. Another motion sought to recognize Mr. Kirk as an Honorary Member of the Association of Graduates. Both motions were introduced by individual members of the board. Another Vote The motions were reportedly introduced by Lt. Gen. Rod Bishop, a retire Air Force veteran, according to another Air Force veteran, Marty France. "[Kirk] has no long record of service to USAFA," France wrote on his Substack on Oct. 16. "What he does have is long record of racist and sexist statements, though. These are well-documented on thousands of sites and not worth rehashing. Probably the most galling to USAFA graduates, though, are his comments about seeing a black pilot in the cockpit of an airliner. 'If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.' "That’s a funny statement coming from someone who had no qualifications to be a member of the USAFA Board of Visitors—overseeing an institution that has probably produced more qualified pilots, of all races, than any other school in the nation. His comments about women, and other minorities, Muslims, and the LGBTQ+ communities are just as bad—and well-documented." France told Military.com that bylaws stipulate that someone can only be nominated twice for votes. "They may try again, but I'm confident they'll lose," he said. The case is State of Oregon v. Trump, 25-6268, US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit  A U.S. appeals court allowed for now President Donald Trump’s plan to deploy troops to Portland, Oregon, to counter protests against his immigration crackdown, a major boost for the administration’s effort to send the military into Democratic-led cities. A divided court in San Francisco on Monday lifted an order earlier this month that blocked the deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard members to Portland, a city Trump has claimed without evidence is “burning to the ground.” The 2-1 ruling doesn’t affect a second order issued by the same lower court judge that blocked the deployment of troops from any state, so an immediate deployment may not be possible. But the government has said it will quickly ask the judge to dissolve that order if the appeals court ruled in its favor. The move by Trump in Portland follows earlier deployments of troops to Los Angeles and Washington, DC, where he claimed crime is out of control and some federal property was in danger from protesters. The president’s recent attempt to send troops to Chicago was temporarily halted Oct. 9 by a judge in that city. A federal appeals court affirmed the order. The Supreme Court may have the final say. State National Guard troops are under the control of individual governors, but the administration has argued U.S. law permits the president to federalize the troops in the event of a rebellion, a foreign invasion or when the president is unable to execute the laws using regular law enforcement. In Oregon, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, said there were no facts to support the president’s claims on social media that Portland was ravaged by war and that anarchists and professional agitators were trying to burn down federal property and other buildings. Her first order blocked Trump’s plan to send 200 Oregon guardsmen to the state’s biggest city. Immergut issued a second temporary order during an emergency hearing the next day, after Trump sought to circumvent her decision by sending troops from California and Texas instead of Oregon. California also joined Oregon’s lawsuit as a result of the move. During the appeals court hearing on Oct. 9, Oregon faced particularly tough questioning by one of the panel’s two Trump-appointed judges, Ryan D. Nelson, who repeatedly expressed his belief that the state shouldn’t be allowed to second-guess the decision of the president. The panel majority — Nelson and another Trump-appointed judge, Bridget Bade — rejected Oregon’s argument that Trump’s assessment of the protest situation in Portland was out-of-date and not made in good faith. “The evidence the president relied on reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment,” the majority said. “We thus conclude that Defendants are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal.” The majority also looked at the broader protest situation across the U.S., including a deadly shooting at an ICE facility that left one detainee dead, to support Trump’s troop deployment to protect federal property. Oregon had argued that only the situation in Portland should be taken into account. Oregon also failed to sway the appeals court to base its decision only on the smaller protests at the Portland ICE facility in the weeks and months before Trump’s deployment. The majority instead looked back to early June, when violence and threats of violence forced the facility to close for nearly three weeks and required a surge in federal personnel from other agencies. The ruling is temporary in nature but gives an indication of how the appeals court judges view the arguments in the case. A three-day trial on the merits is set to start in Portland on Oct. 29, meaning the appeals court may soon be asked to review the case again. |
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Walk 4 Change. All rights reserved.