The Wisconsin Democratic Party sued President Donald Trump and a group of federal agencies Friday for using federal funds on partisan campaign ads ahead of the November midterm elections.

“Weeks before a midterm election that will largely serve as a referendum on the President’s policies, the Trump Administration has turned the federal treasury into a campaign war chest,” the lawsuit charges.

“Over the past three weeks, the Administration has transferred millions of taxpayer funds to run thousands of illegal campaign ads that promote the Administration and attack the President’s opponents — all aimed at improving the chances of Republican Party candidates in the upcoming election.”

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the District of Columbia.

“To pay for this campaign, the Administration took money Congress appropriated for two very different purposes: securing the Nation’s borders, and honoring Department of Homeland Security employees, including those who died in the line of duty,” the lawsuit states.

Democracy Defenders Action and the law firm Hecker Fink filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin as well as Yee Leng Xiong, the Democratic candidate for state treasurer.

“The Trump administration has effectively looted the federal treasury, taking funds meant to protect our borders and honor fallen officers to finance their own election propaganda,” said Norm Eisen, co-founder and board member of Democracy Defenders Action. “This is an insult to every taxpayer in our country and an assault on our democracy, an attempt to tip the scales that is as desperate as it is offensive and illegal.” 

“When Wisconsinites turn on the TV, we want to watch the Brewers and Packers keep winning, not be insulted with our own tax dollars being wasted on ads to prop up a failing President,” said Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Devin Remiker.

The lawsuit says the federally funded ads that the Trump administration began running Sept. 23, featuring Trump, aired on broadcast, cable and streaming platforms, including Sunday political talk shows and college and professional football broadcasts.

“The timing, content, and context of these ads demonstrate that they have no legal non-electoral basis and were instead directed toward supporting the Republican Party and Republican candidates for partisan political offices in the upcoming election,” the lawsuit charges.

The ads ran between Sept. 23 and Sept. 29, airing at least 2,766 times, with one ad airing more than 1,300 times, the lawsuit states. It cites a New York Times article published Oct. 2 that reported the ads were produced under a $20 million contract using Homeland Security funds, as well as other reports by ABC, NBC and the Washington Post about the movement of funds to a Customs and Border Patrol account for commemorative events and the money’s subsequent use for the ads.

“The ads do none of the things for which this money was appropriated. None of the ads have any relation to ‘Line-of-Duty death memorials,’ ‘Department or agency anniversaries,’ or ‘commendation ceremonies.’ Nor do any of the ads relate to enhancing border security,” the lawsuit states.

While Trump announced Oct. 5 that his super PAC MAGA Inc. would pay for the ads, the White House said the super PAC would not reimburse more than $10 million that had been spent on the ads. In addition, the suit charges, on Oct. 6 the administration aired another taxpayer-funded ad praising the administration for its removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The ad campaign “strikes at the heart of our constitutional order,” the lawsuit declares. “The Constitution forbids the government from tipping the electoral scales. By deliberately launching these illegal ads in contemplation of, and with a view towards influencing, the 2026 federal and state mid-term elections, Defendants have interfered with the electoral process.”

In addition to Trump, the lawsuit names the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office, the Office of Management & Budget, and the heads of those agencies: Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott and OMB Director Russell Vought.

The ad campaign violates several federal laws, the suit charges. Those include a blanket ban on using federal appropriations “for publicity or propaganda purposes” in the U.S. as well as bans on “purely partisan activities” and “self-aggrandizement” by federal agencies.

The Trump ads “are ‘designed to aid’ Republican candidates and the Republican Party, and the ‘aggrandizement’ of President Trump,” the lawsuit charges.

In addition, the ads violate the federal Hatch Act, which prohibits political advocacy by federal officials, the suit charges. They also violate a federal law that blocks agencies from spending federal funds Congress hasn’t appropriated and blocks using appropriate funds “to pay a publicity expert unless the funds are specifically appropriated for that purpose,” the suit states.

Besides violating the U.S. Constitution by putting “the government’s thumb on the electoral scale,” the suit says the administration spent taxpayer funds on partisan ads without legal authority and in violation of federal laws, violated the Administrative Procedure Act and  exceeded the administration’s authority under federal laws.

“It is particularly egregious that Defendants have funded their illegal propaganda campaign by converting funds Congress appropriated to keep the citizens of this country safe and to commemorate Department of Homeland Security (‘DHS’) employees, including those who have died in the line of duty,” the lawsuit charges.

Misappropriating and misusing taxpayer funds for “partisan, self-aggrandizing, political propaganda inflicts real harm” on political candidates, the lawsuit charges, and the campaign further harms the plaintiffs because “it requires them to expend more financial and other resources to counter Defendants’ taxpayer-funded ads.”

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is warning motor carriers about fraudulent emails and websites impersonating its Motus registration system, with the National School Transportation Association reporting that school bus contractors are among those being targeted.

NSTA alerted members Friday that several school bus contractors around the country have received emails falsely claiming to originate from FMCSA’s Motus, which is Latin for movement or progress. The phishing messages attempt to pressure recipients into providing confidential information by warning that their registration or ability to operate could be shut down unless they act immediately.

FMCSA said bad actors have begun creating websites designed to imitate Motus. The legitimate Motus website is hosted on the federal government’s DOT.gov domain. FMCSA identified several fraudulent addresses using variations of the Motus name, including sites with “motusdatasboard,” “motusdatadesk,” “motuswebdeck” and “motusfunction” in their domain names.

The agency said customers have received emails with the subject line “Notice of Required Off-Cycle Update- Motus email” directing them to what is described as a “New MOTUS Portal.” FMCSA noted that Motus is not an acronym and should not be presented in all capital letters, another possible warning sign that a message or website is fraudulent.

Anyone who believes they have been targeted can also contact FMCSA through its Contact Center. The agency’s fraud-alert page provides additional examples of fraudulent messages and websites as well as information on reporting suspected scams.

School Bus Contractors React to Suspicious Emails

NSTA said the fraudulent communications reported by school bus contractors similarly seek confidential information while creating a sense of urgency. The association advised members to verify emails and website addresses before entering sensitive, proprietary or account information.

The warning comes as motor carriers and other regulated entities transition to Motus, which FMCSA launched this year to replace several older registration systems. The platform is designed to allow companies to apply for and manage USDOT registrations while providing stronger identity verification and fraud-prevention protections.

That transition provides an opening for scammers attempting to take advantage of operators who are still becoming familiar with the new system.

FMCSA’s fraud alert page advises users not to click suspicious links contained in unsolicited emails. Instead, recipients should hover over links to examine the actual destination and only follow links they know to be trustworthy. The agency also recommends reporting suspicious communications to the Federal Trade Commission and, when appropriate, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, local law enforcement or a state attorney general’s office.

FMCSA maintains a broader list of registration-related scams involving fake audit requests, fraudulent carrier-status notices, spoofed government websites and emails impersonating the agency’s Safety and Fitness Electronic Records, or SAFER, system.

NSTA urged school bus contractors to be particularly cautious with unsolicited requests for account credentials, payments, sensitive company information or proprietary data. The association said it shared at least one reported example with FMCSA and was seeking additional guidance from the agency.

Article written with the assistance of AI.

---

Related: NTSB, FMCSA Officials Discuss School Transportation Safety Priorities at NAPT
Related: Update: U.S. Department of Transportation Enacts CDL Restrictions on Non-Domiciled Workers
Related: U.S. DOT Proposes Rule to Add Fentanyl to CDL Drug Testing Program

The post FMCSA Warns of Fraudulent Emails Targeting Motor Carrier Registrations appeared first on School Transportation News.

The Department of Homeland Security obtained tens of millions of unspecified records as part of a sweeping nationwide effort to find voter fraud, according to internal DHS reports, and weighed using undercover agents to investigate voter registration efforts by nonprofit groups.

The reports from May and June by Homeland Security Investigations, a sub-agency of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, provide updates on its “election integrity” investigations. They are included in a trove of documents obtained by the pro-democracy group Democracy Forward through a records request and released Wednesday.

The HSI reports detail an expansive review of nonprofit organizations involved in voter registration. A June 1 report says 82 “NGOs” — nongovernmental organizations — had been reviewed in Pennsylvania alone. Groups in Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Ohio also came under scrutiny.

The June 1 report describes the potential for undercover operations, and refers to efforts across Homeland Security to identify organizations that “may be predatory in nature, particularly those suspected of illegal alien registration and voter encouragement.” Organizations in New Jersey and Pennsylvania remained areas of focus, the report says.

“The objective is to determine potential opportunities to leverage UC (undercover) resources, including the possible deployment of undercover agents (UCAs), to support investigative efforts in the field,” the report says.

Overall, the records offer a window into the Trump administration’s push to root out voter fraud, and especially noncitizen voting, ahead of the midterm elections. While a few months old, they suggest that finding noncitizen voters was an active focus within Homeland Security Investigations, along with identifying any organizations suspected of registering noncitizens to vote.

Noncitizen voting

Noncitizen voting is a rare occurrence, studies have consistently found. 

The Justice Department has brought a few dozen cases this year, and U.S Attorney General Todd Blanche in late September announced indictments against 10 noncitizens over allegations of unlawfully voting. But the census reports 154 million people voted in the 2024 election.

With early voting beginning across many states, Trump’s bid to assert authority over voting has largely failed. The U.S. Supreme Court blocked his plans to use the U.S. Postal Service to restrict mail ballots and the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to show proof of citizenship, stalled in Congress.

But Democrats, voting rights groups and some election officials are concerned Trump may take more extreme action in the coming weeks. They have braced for possible federal interference, including the prospect of ICE or other federal agents deploying to the polls (Homeland Security denies any plans to target polling places).

“This trove of ICE documents provides chilling new insights into the breadth and depth of the Trump-Vance administration’s efforts to pursue baseless claims of widespread election fraud and assert greater federal control over elections ahead of the 2026 midterms,” Hart Wood, senior oversight counsel at Democracy Forward, said in a statement.

Asked for comment, Homeland Security didn’t address specific questions from States Newsroom. In an unsigned statement, DHS said the agency is “laser focused” on identifying and removing noncitizens who vote. 

“HSI investigates allegations of criminal activity, including unlawful voter registration or voting by noncitizens in federal elections,” the DHS statement says. “While we do not comment on active investigations, investigative methods, or internal deliberations, HSI is actively rooting out and investigating election fraud wherever it can be found. 

“We have repeatedly demonstrated that aliens can and do vote in our elections,” the statement says. “Under President Trump, HSI is committed to restoring integrity to our election systems and ensuring that only American citizens are electing American leaders.”

At a news conference last week to announce indictments against alleged noncitizen voters in Minnesota, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said the Trump administration would never allow the votes of noncitizens to cancel out the votes of American citizens. He said that only citizens should be electing the country’s leaders.

“Our message to aliens who vote in American elections is clear: We will find you, arrest you, and you will face the consequences, including criminal charges and deportation,” Mullin said.

Nonprofits reviewed, researched 

The reports in the records obtained by Democracy Forward describe efforts by HSI to research and review an array of nonprofit groups. In some instances, HSI appeared satisfied after its examination. 

The June 1 report notes that research was completed on approximately 41 non-governmental organizations in New Jersey, with “no derogatory information” found. Research on 20 nonprofit funds linked to a Washington, D.C.-based charitable foundation also turned up nothing, the report notes.

But the report also says the Pennsylvania chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations was “flagged for further investigation.” CAIR is one of the country’s leading Muslim civil rights groups.

Ahmet Selim Tekelioglu, CAIR Pennsylvania executive director, in a statement said the organization’s civic engagement programs have expanded over the years and include voter registration efforts that seek to ensure Muslim Americans are empowered to vote and fully engaged in the civic process.

“Our voter registration program follows all applicable voter registration rules and requirements,” Tekelioglu said.

Education Minnesota, an educators union, is named in the June 1 report as one of 22 organizations that HSI was beginning to research at the time. Monica Byron, Education Minnesota’s president, said the organization learned of the investigation on Tuesday because of Democracy Forward.

Byron said the group shares Democracy Forward’s concerns about potential government surveillance of lawful voter registration activities. 

“We do not know the details of any investigation into our union, but we will not be deterred in encouraging all eligible members to exercise their right to vote in the upcoming election,” Byron said in a statement.

Tens of millions of records

The HSI reports show that Heather Honey, a DHS official who came to prominence denying President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss, obtained 48.4 million records through “independent sources of information.” Additionally, HSI drew upon some 50.6 million records from the Department of Justice.

The exact nature of the records isn’t described, but the DOJ has sued dozens of states for voter records, including sensitive personal information such as driver’s license and Social Security numbers. The department hasn’t won any of the lawsuits, but at least 16 states have voluntarily provided the data.

The Supreme Court ruled in September that states can use a powerful Homeland Security program called SAVE to help identify possible noncitizen voters after voting rights groups sued to block its use, alleging that it often relies on inaccurate data and has a track record of wrongly flagging U.S. citizens. The decision’s impact on the midterms is expected to be minimal because most states are already too close to a federal election to conduct mass purges of voters.

But the HSI reports suggest that while the legal fight over SAVE was playing out in the courts, Homeland Security was nevertheless analyzing a vast collection of records for signs of voter fraud.

HSI’s June 1 report says 26,563 records derived from ICE had been prioritized for “downstream vetting,” with a focus on Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania. 

Priority states for HSI’s review of Justice Department records included those states, as well as Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia and Texas.

The report notes that records were sent to iLab — an apparent reference to HSI’s Innovation Lab — for “secondary enrichment and identification of high-value targets.”

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

Reading Time: 6 minutes

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

When Lac du Flambeau Town Clerk Susan Schoonover began her job four years ago, the town’s technology infrastructure was in a bygone era.

The 3,500-person town had no official website, and staff used ordinary email accounts for town business. That could have made it easier for someone to impersonate the town, send convincing phishing messages or steer residents to a fake site. Residents had no verified government domain to tell them which messages and websites were real.

A programmer, Schoonover made changing that setup an early priority. The town got a grant to move staff onto government email addresses, she built an official website using a government domain, and she persuaded the town board to keep investing in cybersecurity even as its property tax revenue shrank.

Lac du Flambeau now stands ahead of hundreds of other small towns in Wisconsin that still use non-government domains, which experts say runs afoul of cybersecurity best practices.

A Votebeat analysis of state data found that about one in three Wisconsin clerks still use Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo or other consumer email accounts for election business — and every municipality using one has fewer than 5,000 residents. Most have fewer than 1,000. On the other hand, among municipalities with more than 25,000 residents, not a single clerk uses a consumer account.

It’s a genuine risk not to have government domains, said Trevor Timmons, vice president of the nonpartisan election consultation group Ready for Tuesday. Government sites are “harder to spoof” and “harder to successfully send phishing attacks to,” Timmons said. Phishing is when a scammer sends a link designed to obtain the recipients’ personal information.

The threat isn’t just hypothetical. Hackers tried to breach the emails of election officials in at least nine states in 2021. In November 2016, Russian hackers sent over 120 emails containing malicious software to the email accounts of election officials in Florida. In 2020, the FBI identified dozens of URLs that looked like real election websites, which government officials said could be used to phish or post incorrect election information.

Wisconsin looks relatively typical when viewed statewide. A Bipartisan Policy Center analysis found that about 43% of Wisconsin municipalities and counties with listed websites use government domains, roughly the 44% national average. But that average masks how uneven the technological progress has been: Larger jurisdictions have largely modernized while many of the smallest have not.

“The big difference with .gov is not necessarily that the cybersecurity is so much better, but that your visitors can know that they’re getting information from a trusted, verified government entity,” said William Adler, research director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Elections Project.

That becomes harder when real election officials use Gmail, Hotmail and similar accounts.

“If you were to tell a voter, ‘Don’t trust any email coming from an election official that’s from a Hotmail.com address,’ they might ignore real election official communications that they need to respond to in order to vote more easily,” Adler said, adding that it will take a while to get to the ideal point where most or all election jurisdictions use government domains.

Wisconsin’s decentralized election system makes closing the gap difficult. The state has 1,850 municipal clerks and 72 county clerks with roles in running elections, many serving tiny jurisdictions with little or no dedicated IT staff.

“Many of these municipalities don’t have much in the way of IT resources, so it’s fairly impressive that Wisconsin has managed to stay on par with the rest of the country,” Adler said.

The state has spent years — and millions of dollars — trying to help local election offices improve election security and move onto government domains. Hundreds have taken advantage of that help. But the jurisdictions still behind are concentrated in the smallest places.

Consumer emails may have been the norm 30 years ago, Schoonover said, but now towns need to modernize or else risk having their systems tampered with or their data wiped out.

“The way the world’s changed, it can’t always be like old times,” she said.

Wisconsin has spent years funding local election cybersecurity

While some small towns manage the cost of hosting government domains, the expense can be significant for rural municipalities with tiny budgets and little or no IT staff.

In Big Bend, a Rusk County town with around 400 residents, the town board is working through its options because its current email provider, Bruce Telephone Company, is cutting off its email hosting services, Town Clerk Sandy Rassbach said. The town is now choosing between a consumer email provider like Gmail or switching to a government domain, she said.

A couple thousand dollars to maintain a government domain is a big expense for a town, she said.

About 49% of Wisconsin election jurisdictions use government email domains while another 18% use custom domains tied to their municipality. Those custom addresses can have strong security protections, but unlike .gov addresses, they are not restricted to verified government entities.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission has spent years helping local governments improve election security, including through grants specifically aimed at moving municipalities to government domains. But the federal money supporting the programs is dwindling — and WEC has warned that the state may eventually need to step in if it wants to keep subsidizing local election security upgrades.

“If the Legislature wants to see elections in large cities and small towns become more uniform, they may wish to provide funding for WEC to continue to administer subgrants or to directly fund elections for municipalities,” the commission stated in July 2026 budget materials outlining the agency’s future funding needs.

Separately, Wisconsin Emergency Management is administering $4.7 million in federal grants to jurisdictions vulnerable to cybersecurity attacks.

Registering a government domain itself is free, Timmons said. The expense comes from services such as email hosting, technical support and security, which can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars a year.

It would be ideal for providers to offer their services at no cost or reduced costs for election officials, he said, “but it hasn’t quite gotten there yet.”

Timmons said it’s hard for small-town clerks working part-time hours with no IT department to switch to government emails.

One way to accelerate the shift, he said, would be for the commission to condition future election security grants on jurisdictions already having — or agreeing to adopt — government emails.

The commission already conditions grants on certain security requirements. For example, municipalities can only receive the current round of $2,000 election security subgrants if they first use the funds to update operating systems and antivirus software.

Those are critical, Timmons said — and so are government domains.

The elections commission in 2021 told clerks that officials with non-government emails would eventually be cut off from some state services, though that hasn’t come to pass. Many of those services have protections designed to prevent unauthorized access, like multi-factor authentication.

Small towns with little funding likeliest not to have government domains

The disparity is particularly stark in northern Rusk County, a rural county with 14,000 residents spread across 33 municipalities. Twenty-seven of its clerks use consumer email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Outlook.

Willard is one of the exceptions. Town deputy treasurer Linda Bentley, who has an IT background, spearheaded the town’s switch to government email domains four years ago after she recognized that officials in the Rusk County town were using multiple consumer email domains, like Gmail and Yahoo.

Before the switch, she said, “you really weren’t sure you were getting to the Willard town clerk.”

Town Clerk Mary Jane Nelson said she is “absolutely” more confident communicating with voters now, and she receives significantly fewer spam emails.

“It’s really been a great move, as far as I’m concerned,” she said.

Making that change has required ongoing spending. The town pays $400 every three years for server space, and Bentley charges $200 a year for email security and design — significantly below market rates. Bentley said other nearby towns spend up to $2,000 a year on server space, maintenance and security.

Not every jurisdiction without a government domain is relying on Gmail or Yahoo. Around 360 municipalities use custom domains unique to their municipality, such as kenosha.org or cityofmiddleton.us. Those addresses can have strong security protections, but unlike .gov, they are not restricted to verified government entities.

Those custom domains span the size spectrum, from Fence in Florence County, with fewer than 200 residents, to Madison, with about 285,000. Kenosha is the largest Wisconsin city without a registered government domain for its email or website. Consumer email accounts, by contrast, are concentrated entirely in small municipalities.

It’s often easier to change to government domains if a municipality already has a paid, custom domain, Timmons said, though the switch still requires some technical expertise.

With the November election approaching, Timmons said jurisdictions shouldn’t make major changes to their email systems now. But they can still contact CISA and begin applying for a government domain to prepare for the change after the election.

“I would encourage people to get the ball rolling on that,” he said.

Bentley is glad the town of Willard has already taken those steps. The switch gave the town something more basic: a recognizable identity online.

“It’s become our signature,” she said, “our confidence that you know you’re emailing the town clerk for the town of Willard, not some spoofed address.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Hundreds of Wisconsin election offices not using cybersecurity best practices is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

A federal immigration judge ruled Wednesday that Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, can be deported. Judge Jayme Salinardi rejected accusations made by the Department of Homeland Security that Sarsour lied on his green card application over 30 years ago, and that he registered to vote despite not being a citizen. Salindari did, however, give what Sarsour’s attorneys called “extreme deference” to a 2025 memo by Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating that Sarsour — a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights  — is deportable “because his actions undermine” U.S. foreign policy.

The same morning Salindari ruled on Sarsour’s case, he announced his retirement. A different immigration judge will preside over further proceedings in Sarsour’s case. During a press conference Wednesday, attorneys representing Sarsour called the decision “unjust,” and said the timing of  Salindari’s retirement announcement was “odd.” 

Immigration attorney Patrick Taurel said that Sarsour — who is not taking interviews at this time — was “disappointed but not shocked” by the judge’s ruling, and that he understands that immigration judges are under pressure from the Trump administration. Last year, nearly 100 immigration judges were fired by the Trump administration, shrinking the number of judges by about a quarter, NPR reported. 

“It does feel odd,” said attorney Luna Droubi, who is representing Sarsour in a separate federal case arguing First Amendment retaliation by the government. 

Taurel said he plans to appeal Salindari’s ruling down the road. Now that Sarsour has been found deportable, the next question is whether he is eligible for any kind of relief, such as asylum. Taurel said that Sarsour will eventually be able to appeal his case to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which he described as more neutral than the immigration courts. Proceedings are expected to continue into next year and under a different judge, Taurel said. 

Sarsour was in Milwaukee when immigration agents arrested him in late March. They then transported him out of Wisconsin and to a detention center in Indiana. DHS accused Sarsour of lying on his green card application in the 1990s, and claimed that he had been convicted as a teenager in Israeli military courts of throwing Molotov cocktails in 1988, during the First Intifada uprising. Sarsour grew up in the West Bank under Israeli military occupation. DHS also said that Sarsour had been charged in Israel with illegally attempting to possess weapons and ammunition in 1995. Prosecutors also accused Sarsour of registering to vote in 2004 despite not having full citizenship.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, reached for comment on the ruling, reiterated the department’s assertion that Sarsour “is a terrorist who was convicted of throwing Molotov cocktails at the homes of Israeli armed forces.” The spokesperson wrote in an email to the Examiner that “due to a previous court order, this public safety threat was loose on our streets,” and said that the judge in Sarsour’s case sustained the government’s case that there were grounds to deport Sarsour. “All illegal aliens receive due process,” the spokesperson wrote. “If a judge finds an illegal alien has no right to be in this country, we are going to remove them. Period. Under President Trump and Secretary Mullin, if you break the law, you will face the consequences. Criminal illegal aliens are not welcome in the U.S.”

Sarsour is a legal permanent resident and has lived in the United States for over 30 years, during which time he has not been arrested or convicted of any crime prior to his immigration arrest. 

Sarsour’s attorneys dispute the accusations, saying that their client was  convicted of throwing stones, not explosives. They also introduced evidence that Israeli authorities tortured Sarsour to get his confessions which were signed in Hebrew, a language Sarsour can neither speak nor read. Experts and witnesses called to the stand by Taruel testified to the use of torture by Israeli authorities, a lack of due process rights afforded to Palestinians like Sarsour, and that Sarsour continues to suffer from PTSD due to his time in Israeli detention. Another expert said that Sarsour passed a polygraph test in which he denied having registered to vote. Prosecutors did not call any witnesses or experts for their side during the proceedings. 

Although Salindari rejected the accusations that Sarsour lied on his green card application and that he registered to vote, Taurel said that the judge did give “extreme deference” to Israeli documents concerning Sarsour’s convictions. Despite the testimony involving the nature of the Israeli military court system, Salindari found the convictions against Sarsour to be valid. 

Droubi said that Sarsour’s immigration case has no bearing on his federal First Amendment retaliation case, which she and Taurel believe is the reason the Trump administration targeted Sarsour for deportation and is supported by Salinardi’s ruling that he could be deported on foreign policy grounds. After Rubio said Sarsour’s “actions undermine U.S. foreign policy,” the Justice Department announced it would begin targeting the group American Muslims for Palestine, for which Sarsour is a board member.

Sarsour’s First Amendment claims, his lack of any criminal record in the U.S. and  his deteriorating health, contributed to a federal judge’s ruling that he should be released due to having a “substantial” claim of First Amendment retaliation.

“You have to ask yourself,” Droubi told  the Examiner, “if you are an immigrant, ‘Do I have the right to speak out about issues that matter to me? What if I draw a political cartoon? Am I going to be arrested and detained because of that? Is the government going to bring charges against me and potentially remove me from this country?’” Droubi added, “That is significant, and I think it does chill the speech of immigrants and non-citizens in this country, and it should really terrify all of us.”

Taurel said that the cases of Sarsour, Mahmoud Khalil, and other Palestinian activists targeted for deportation underscore “the need for Congress to repeal the foreign policy ground of deportability.” Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont); Senator Alex Padilla (D-California) introduced a bill titled  the Land of the Free Act to repeal the rarely-used Cold War provision of immigration law last year, saying the Trump administration had “weaponized” it to punish political speech.

Like many Palestinians born before or around the Six Day War between Israel and a group of Arab nations, Sarsour has travel documentation issued by Jordan but is not a citizen of that country. If he were deported, he would likely ultimately end up back in Israeli territory.

“We feared this outcome,” Taurel said of the judge’s decision. “But Salah is determined to keep speaking out.”

A federal grand jury indicted 10 noncitizens for unlawfully voting in Minnesota, U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said Wednesday, highlighting the administration’s effort to keep election security a top issue, in line with President Donald Trump’s longstanding unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud.

The indictments, which include nine counts of unlawful voting and nine counts of falsely claiming citizenship to register to vote, bring the number of noncitizens charged nationwide with election-related crimes since Trump re-took office last year to 90. The census reports 154 million people voted in the 2024 election.

Blanche said at a news conference at Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C., that the indictments show how seriously the administration takes election security.

“We have talked repeatedly about the importance of election integrity, and we’re certainly not going to stop talking about that now,” he said. “Voter fraud erodes the public’s trust in our electoral system, and it’s vital to our democratic process that we do everything that we can to restore that trust.”

Blanche’s participation in a press conference, alongside fellow Cabinet member Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, underlined the administration’s continuing focus on noncitizen voting, though numerous studies have shown it to be rare. Trump has for years amplified debunked conspiracy theories centered on election fraud.

Mullin made that connection explicit Wednesday, saying the indictments confirmed Trump’s accusations.

“The president said it for a long time, and the Democrats were sitting there denying it and saying, ‘There’s no fraud. That wasn’t taking place. There’s no fraud. There’s nothing, nothing here. Don’t look over here,’” he said. “We’re realizing there’s actually a lot. And we believe that some of these states probably even knew about it, chose not to look into it. Well, we are.”

But the allegations of illegal voting in Minnesota in the 2022 and 2024 general elections and 2026 primaries made virtually no difference to election results. 

The seven alleged illegal votes in the 2024 presidential election, for example, would account for only .0002% of votes cast in that election in Minnesota.

President Donald Trump is tapping $20 million in Homeland Security funding to pay for TV ads that heavily feature him ahead of the midterm elections, Democrats said Tuesday as the promos critics call propaganda come under bipartisan attack.

The Trump administration recently moved the funds into a U.S. Customs and Border Protection budget line intended for “commemorative events” related to border security, according to federal records. Congressional Democrats said the dollars appear to be funding the ad campaign.

The ads face mounting criticism as Republicans confront an angry electorate that, according to polling, appears likely to place Democrats in control of the House and possibly the Senate. Yet the messaging reflects Trump’s strategy of centering the election on himself and telling supporters to vote as if he was on the ballot, as he urged during the GOP midterm convention.

The three ads released so far feature stylized imagery of Trump and include “Paid for by the U.S. Government” disclosures. One is nearly identical to a 2024 Trump campaign ad. Some $2 million in ads have aired on cable and broadcast stations over the past week. 

“This is the final battle,” Trump says in a voiceover in one black-and-white ad that shows him walking silently toward the camera. Another ad uses the song “Love Me” by the artist JMSN. Attorneys for the performer have sent a cease-and-desist letter to the administration demanding the ad be taken down.

Both Dems and Republicans object

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, slammed the ads as indistinguishable from Trump’s 2024 campaign ads, yet funded by taxpayers. “It’s an absolute violation of what democracy is supposed to look like. Americans sat down to watch football, not to be force fed Trump’s propaganda on their own dime,” Schumer said Monday on the Senate floor.

Some GOP senators have also split with the Trump administration over the ads. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, told reporters that while he liked the ads’ message, tax dollars shouldn’t pay for them. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas have also pushed back, among others.

“I don’t think any public official, including President Trump or (former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi) Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” Kennedy told “Face the Nation” on CBS.

$20 million materializes

On Tuesday, Sens. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Christopher Murphy of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said his department appeared to have dedicated $20 million to the ads that had been provided to Customs and Border Protection, a sub-agency of DHS, in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act last year.

House Democratic Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Henry Cuellar of Texas in their own statement also cited federal apportionment changes by the Office of Management and Budget recorded by OpenOMB, a non-governmental database that tracks apportionments. 

OpenOMB shows that on Sept. 19, $20 million was moved into a fund that pays for border security commemorative events and that previously held just $500,000.

The following day, Homeland Security awarded a $20 million contract to LMD Agency, Inc., a Maryland-based marketing firm, for a “national media campaign,” according to federal contract data.

Republican blocks resolution on ads

Sen. Maggie Hassan, a New Hampshire Democrat, sought unanimous consent in the Senate on Tuesday to pass a resolution stating that the federal government shouldn’t pay for the ads. 

“The Department of Homeland Security should be working to tackle the enormous national security threats we face like stopping fentanyl, not bankrolling a vanity project for the president,” Hassan said.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis, a Wyoming Republican, objected, saying the heart of the ads is about defending American values from communism and socialism. Lummis said if that message has Hassan concerned, it says “more about her side of the aisle than it does about” the ads. The action by Lummis halted action on the resolution.

Administration defends ads

The White House and Homeland Security didn’t deny that the government fund was being used to pay for the ads, in response to questions from States Newsroom.

The White House said in an unsigned statement that the ads — which it calls public service announcements — are educational and intended to remind Americans “to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad.” 

Homeland Security referred States Newsroom to a White House webpage that also defends the ads. The page says they aren’t campaign ads, noting that Trump isn’t on the ballot and that the messages include no call to action.

Government ethics and legal experts say that explanation misses the point.

“There’s a distinction between providing people with information about government programs and engaging in communication that merely aggrandizes government officials. And what we have here is purely aggrandizing Donald Trump,” Samuel Bagenstos, who served as general counsel to the Office of Management and Budget during the first year and a half of President Joe Biden’s administration, said in an interview.

Bagenstos, who is now a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said that if the issue was simply whether the ads violate the Hatch Act, a federal law that limits federal employees — but not the president – from engaging in partisan politics on the job, the question of the ads’ legality could be more complicated. 

But the most important legal issue with the ads, he said, isn’t the Hatch Act but whether the messages violate prohibitions on using government funds for propaganda. 

During his time in government service, which also included a stint as general counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration, Bagenstos said agencies were constantly communicating with the public, and there’s always a question of how far officials can go. But he said these kind of issues were reviewed carefully, often in ways that annoyed communications staff who wanted to put out messages immediately.

“But if something like this had crossed my desk, I would have said, ‘You can’t pay for this ad. It is clearly illegal,’” Bagenstos said, adding that the ads are the kind of thing he would have considered resigning over. “It’s that clear a violation of law and it’s really corrosive to democracy,” he said.

Similarity to franking?

Members of Congress and state-level officials regularly release slick official communications that sometimes echo campaign messaging. But that practice, known as “franking,” comes with clear restrictions, including a U.S. House prohibition on mass mailings 60 days before an election.

In sending franked mail, members of Congress are barred from sending mail that “solicits political support” for the lawmaker or any person or political party, Margaret Dylus-Yukins, senior legal counsel for ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, wrote in an email.

The Trump ads, by contrast, don’t pertain to any policymaking process or function of government, and while the White House has said the messages remind Americans to love their country, there’s no apparent connection to any federal program or service, Dylus-Yukins wrote. 

Instead, she wrote that their inflammatory language, widespread distribution and touting of Trump’s term in office, as well as their close proximity to the midterms, “all suggest that these advertisements were produced with the intent to solicit political support for President Trump’s political allies ahead of the midterm election.”

“These advertisements therefore appear to be in violation of the Hatch Act and raise serious concerns about the use of taxpayer funds to possibly sway the upcoming election’s outcome,” Dylus-Yukins wrote.

No lawsuit yet

As of Tuesday afternoon the ads didn’t appear to face a legal challenge. 

The watchdog group Democracy Forward said Monday it was launching an investigation into the ads and had filed records requests for communications regarding the ads and financial paperwork related to them.

Bagenstos suggested the courts may not be the best avenue to fight the ads. Instead, he said, Congress needs to assert itself and retaliate against inappropriate spending.

“In our separation of powers system, what our framers expected was that Congress would stand up for its power first,” Bagenstos said.

WASHINGTON — Government investigators Thursday released a report that found the Department of Homeland Security wasted more than $20 million in federal funding in its rapid expansion of immigration detention, including warehouse purchases strongly opposed in numerous U.S. communities.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that millions were wasted because DHS began expanding detention operations without putting a plan in place to meet U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s goal of detaining up to 100,000 immigrants. 

As the second Trump administration aims to deport 1 million immigrants a year, DHS has rapidly increased the numbers of people in immigration detention after congressional Republicans last year approved roughly $175 billion for immigration enforcement.

“As ICE spends the unprecedented multi-year detention funding provided by (the One Big Beautiful Act) and the Secure America Act, it is critical that the agency uses these taxpayer dollars efficiently and effectively,” according to the report by the watchdog agency. “In the absence of a comprehensive strategic plan to guide detention expansion, ICE has wasted funds on unsuccessful detention initiatives and lacks important information about the long-term affordability of its investments.” 

Tents assembled, never used

In the report, GAO found those detention expansion efforts wasted millions by using facilities that were high in cost or impractical, such as Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, which is so remote that water needs to be imported to the base, making it a costly operation. 

Inspectors with the Department of Defense and Department of State estimated that DOD spent $2.85 million to assemble tents that were never used and that ICE obligated $43 million from the start of fiscal year 2025 to June 30, 2026 for a small population at the base. GAO found that 16 noncitizens were held on average daily at Guantanamo in fiscal year 2026. 

Other efforts that lacked proper planning also included domestic military operations, such as the soft-sided facility, Camp East Montana, built on a military base in El Paso, Texas.

GAO previously reported that ICE wasted more than $11 million in taxpayer funds in operating Camp East Montana, such as paying for meals when detainees had not yet arrived at the facility. Investigators noted that ICE had awarded another contract in March for Camp East Montana and “as of August 2026 had not yet incorporated these cost saving measures into the contract and continued to pay for services that it did not need.”

Warehouses cost more than $1B

Investigators also examined the purchase of 11 warehouses at $1.07 billion for the purpose of immigration detention. 

The initiative was initially undertaken by former Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem, but she stepped down following the deaths of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis who were shot by immigration officials. Her replacement, former Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin, paused the warehouse effort. 

DHS now plans to sell seven of the sites that were purchased. Investigators said the department’s change of course has led to nonrecoverable costs, such as $7.7 million spent in zoning assessments and title insurance. 

Additionally, ICE is still paying for utilities, security and other services at the warehouses it intends to sell, costing approximately $12.8 million as of last month.

Investigators also warned that ICE’s separate move to purchase $1.5 billion in existing detention facilities has the potential to waste money because the agency has not assessed any long-term costs of operating the facilities. 

And GAO notes that while ICE did not have an agreement with the state of Florida to reimburse funds for its soft-sided facility, the now shuttered “Alligator Alcatraz,” DHS used funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to award $608.4 million to the state. 

No idea of long-term cost

Investigators also raised concerns that ICE has not made an assessment for the long-term cost of operating the expanded detention facilities. 

“ICE has not projected the costs of these facilities beyond the first 3 years of operation, after which ICE will no longer have OBBBA and Secure America Act funds available for obligation because these funds are only available through fiscal year 2029,” according to the report. 

Investigators made a recommendation that the Director of ICE “should develop a comprehensive strategic plan to guide its detention expansion efforts that includes goals, activities, and resource needs.”

GAO reported that the department agreed and that ICE would develop a strategic plan for its detention expansion, but that plan will not be completed until Aug. 31, 2027. 

“Given ICE’s unprecedented multi-year detention funding and the potential for continued waste of taxpayer dollars, more timely completion may be warranted,” according to the report. 

Congressional Democrats requested that GAO do the study. 

Those lawmakers include Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, ranking member on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Dick Durbin of Illinois, ranking member on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and Mississippi Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, ranking member on the House Committee on Homeland Security.

Your district’s bus cameras capture footage from every route every day, quietly building a record of what happens inside and around your buses. If you’ve focused your vendor selection on picture quality, camera placement, and ease-of-use features, there’s a good chance you have overlooked a critical question: how well is that footage protected?

The Onboard Storage Security Gap

When something happens on a bus, whether it’s a bullying complaint, a driver dispute, or an accident, the video footage is often the only objective account of what occurred. That’s why the system capturing it needs real safeguards built in from the start, not only to ensure the footage exists, but to protect it once it does.

If your current system still relies on someone physically accessing a bus to manually remove a card or drive it, you’re exposed to significant risk. That storage device could end up lost or damaged. The footage may never have been recorded properly in the first place, and you might not discover that until you need it.

Many modern system setups now store footage on a mobile Digital Video Recorder (DVR) on the bus first, then move it to a secure cloud platform where your team can pull up an incident without needing physical access to the vehicle.

Ask whether your system is capable of:

• Remote System Health Monitoring
  Catch a failed camera or a recording issue before an incident happens
• Locked Physical Storage
  A DVR unit that’s physically locked down, so footage can’t be pulled by just anyone with access to the bus
• Role-Based Software Permissions
  Only approved staff can view, share, or download footage
• Audit Logs
  Documenting who accessed which recording, when, and any sharing or downloading activity

Audit logs are the most overlooked of the four during procurement and can sometimes be the most important after an incident. If a parent or school administrator asks how footage was handled, you want a clear, documented answer, not one you’re piecing together after the fact.

Hardware Must Be Part of Your Security Plan

Buses subject onboard equipment to constant vibration, temperature swings, and daily wear from transporting students five days a week. But durability isn’t the only reason that mounting and camera choices are important. A camera that protrudes out into the cabin is also easier to grab, twist out of position, or cover.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, the regulation governing school bus passenger seating and crash protection, establishes a “head impact zone” inside the bus. Many states build on that by requiring that interior equipment be located outside that zone, have no sharp edges or projections, and be placed in a manner unlikely to cause student injury. Cameras that sit flush with the ceiling, rather than protruding into the cabin, are more likely to meet those requirements and more resistant to tampering.

This is a detail that rarely factors into early vendor conversations, yet it can influence how dependable your system stays for years into its service life.

Security Doesn’t Stop at the Interior

If your approach to bus video security only covers what happens inside the bus, you’re missing part of the picture. Stop-arm cameras that capture plates of vehicles passing illegally, along with forward- and side-facing exterior cameras, need the same protection as interior footage: controlled access, tamper resistance, and a record of who has accessed each file. A system that’s locked down inside but loosely managed outside still leaves you exposed.

It All Comes Back to Trust

Two factors determine whether your video system delivers when it matters: whether you can trust the footage will be there when you need it, and whether it holds up to scrutiny from parents, administrators, or law enforcement.

A system that protects footage from loss or tampering, and documents who accessed it and when, addresses both. You’re not just more likely to have the footage. You’re in a far stronger position if it’s ever questioned, whether that’s a bullying complaint, a question about a driver, or documentation following an accident.

That’s the standard worth holding your video solution to. Capturing what happened isn’t enough on its own. The footage needs to be there when needed, with safeguards in place to protect it for as long as it’s needed.

Learn more at www.provisionsolutions.com. 

The views expressed are those of the content sponsor and do not reflect those of School Transportation News.

The post The Security Gaps Most Districts Overlook in Bus Video Solutions appeared first on School Transportation News.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court Friday struck down the Trump administration’s policy to quickly send noncitizens to countries they are not from, finding that immigrants must have an opportunity to challenge their removal if they fear for their safety.

The decision largely upheld a Boston federal judge’s February ruling that found the Department of Homeland Security’s policy unlawful. But the immigration officers can still conduct third-country removals if they follow the proper procedures, such as adequate notice and an opportunity for an immigrant to raise a fear-based claim to that country of removal.

Third-country removals, deportations from the United States to a nation other than an immigrant’s home country, occur when the immigrant’s home country does not accept the person’s repatriation. 

Once rare, the procedure has spiked under the second Trump administration that has entered into partnerships with several countries, some with human rights concerns, to take third-country removals from the U.S.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit also raised doubts that a country that accepts a person that is not their own citizen could “credibly provide blanket assurances that all removed noncitizens will not be persecuted or tortured there unless it intends to provide them with some sort of affirmative protection against rogue agents and non-state actors.” 

The panel also upheld the lower court’s finding that the notice to a third country was inadequate – about 24 hours – and that the policy was unlawful.

It gives “no notice at all of an impending third-country removal when the country to which the noncitizen is to be removed has provided credible (in the State Department’s judgment) diplomatic assurances that noncitizens removed there from the United States will not be persecuted or tortured,” the panel wrote.

The panel included circuit judges Lara E. Montecalvo, Jeffrey R. Howard and Seth R. Aframe. Former President Joe Biden nominated Montecalvo and Aframe. Former President George W. Bush nominated Howard.

The Trump administration in May 2025 made an emergency request to the Supreme Court after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy blocked the policy. The Supreme Court in June 2025 temporarily allowed for the removals, before sending it back to the lower court. 

Murphy again in February issued an order that blocked the policy and required DHS to carry out the statutory obligations of proper notice of removal to a third country and to give a noncitizen enough time to raise any concerns for their safety to their removal to a third country. 

The Trump administration later appealed to the First Circuit, and could appeal again to the Supreme Court. 

DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment Friday. 

Twenty-five years after 9/11, the surveillance infrastructure built and expanded in its aftermath has become part of a far larger digital ecosystem — producing tools that can collect and analyze information on a scale unimaginable in 2001.

The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, did more than reshape the nation’s approach to terrorism. They changed the architecture of American intelligence and policing. They expanded how government agencies collect, share and analyze information, and brought national security tools deeper into ordinary law enforcement.

The infrastructure built in the attacks’ aftermath has proved remarkably durable. Joint terrorism task forces and fusion centers brought federal, state and local agencies into closer intelligence-sharing networks. New laws expanded the government’s ability to obtain information. And police departments acquired technologies that once belonged largely to the realm of national security.

But the expansion of surveillance did not go uncontested. Civil liberties groups warned that the new powers could erode Americans’ privacy and constitutional protections, while many Americans accepted expanded government surveillance as a necessary tradeoff for safety in the aftermath of the attacks. 

The country also entered a period of heightened scrutiny for people perceived as foreign or potentially threatening — with American Muslims and immigrant communities bearing a particularly heavy burden.

Then came the digital revolution.

Americans began carrying smartphones, broadcasting their lives on social media and generating enormous amounts of commercially collected data. Police gained access to license plate readers, networks of cameras, cellphone location information and other technologies capable of tracking people and mapping their movements.

Now, artificial intelligence is adding another layer: systems that can sift through those vast stores of information, connect previously separate databases and generate analyses in seconds.

Some surveillance and privacy experts say that the amount of information available to the government — and its ability to make sense of it — has fundamentally changed since 9/11. 

That has taken on new urgency as surveillance systems have moved further into everyday life. Automated license plate readers can track where people drive. Facial recognition can help identify people in crowds. Commercial data can reveal where and how people live and travel. And increasingly, artificial intelligence can analyze and connect these streams of information at a speed no human investigator could match. 

Those capabilities have raised concerns among some experts and advocates about how surveillance could be used to monitor protests, track immigrants and identify people seeking reproductive healthcare.

Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel and director of the security and surveillance project at the Center for Democracy & Technology, described the post-9/11 era as a “perfect storm.”

“That storm is both the expansion of the legal powers that have been conferred on the government to collect and share information, combined with the advance of technology, which has given the government more tools to collect information from more people in more contexts,” Nojeim said.

From intelligence silos to everyday policing

In the months after 9/11, officials sought to fix a critical weakness exposed by the attacks: Intelligence that could have helped uncover the plot was held across government agencies that failed to connect or share it effectively. The response was a sweeping effort to tear down those silos and build a more integrated intelligence network.

Federal, state and local agencies quickly expanded intelligence-sharing, and the government established and expanded networks designed to move information across traditional institutional boundaries. The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces brought together federal, state and local law enforcement and intelligence personnel. 

Fusion centers, generally run by state and local governments with federal support, became another part of the post-9/11 intelligence architecture, with at least one operating in every state. The centers serve as intelligence hubs where law enforcement agencies can share information, analyze data and flag potential threats across jurisdictions.

Katie Kinsey, chief of staff and tech policy counsel at the Policing Project at the NYU School of Law, said the original goal was straightforward — prevent another terrorist attack.

Over time, some fusion centers began supporting investigations and enforcement involving lower-level crimes, Kinsey said. Local police departments also developed their own versions of centralized intelligence hubs, often called real-time crime centers, that can integrate information from cameras, automated license plate readers and other surveillance systems.

David Viola, an adjunct professor at the Center on Terrorism at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and author of “You Have Unleashed a Storm: New York City’s Descent into Chaos During America’s Most Explosive Era of Radical Violence,” said the post-9/11 period also marked a major shift in the kind of information available to investigators. 

Before the attacks, he said, intelligence work relied heavily on traditional investigative techniques. Today, digital records can provide information about where people go, with whom they communicate, what they purchase and what they post online.

But technology is only part of the transformation. Viola said the institutional relationships forged among local, state and federal authorities after 9/11 are among the period’s most lasting legacies.

“These are institutions that have cemented the close coordination between state, local, federal, tribal authorities in the past 25 years, and they’re going nowhere, for better or worse,” he said.

Nojeim, of the Center for Democracy & Technology, was directing lobbyists in Washington, D.C., on 9/11. His office was evacuated as officials tried to determine whether the U.S. Capitol was the target of another hijacked plane.

In the aftermath, he said, civil liberties advocates understood that decisions made in response to the attacks could extend far beyond the immediate crisis. 

About a month after the attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law, dramatically expanding the federal government’s ability to collect information and conduct surveillance in terrorism investigations. Some of its most sweeping surveillance authorities were later curtailed or allowed to expire, but the law helped establish a new framework for national security surveillance that continues to shape how Americans’ data is collected and monitored.

“In the days after 9/11, we all realized that what the government did in the next few days to respond could have lasting implications for the civil liberties of Americans,” Nojeim said.

The data economy

The growth of surveillance after 9/11 also coincided with a separate transformation that would make those systems far more powerful. Americans were beginning to carry smartphones, use social media and spend more of their lives online, generating enormous amounts of digital information that did not exist before.

Kinsey, of the Policing Project, said that created a new dynamic for law enforcement. Agencies had expanded their ability to collect and share intelligence after 9/11, while technology was producing more information about people than ever before. Much of that information was collected by private companies for commercial purposes, but it could also become available to law enforcement, either through data purchases or when companies turned information over to authorities.

At the same time, Kinsey said, Americans have become accustomed to giving up personal information without necessarily understanding how it is collected or what can ultimately be done with it.

“There’s still a lack of awareness because there’s a lack of transparency on the part of law enforcement, but also on the part of these private tech companies about what they are actually collecting on us, and then what they’re doing with that information,” Kinsey said.

That lack of visibility extends beyond the cameras and other surveillance tools people can see. Personal data can be combined and shared behind the scenes, allowing the government to draw conclusions from pieces of information that may seem insignificant on their own.

“Never in human history has the government had more information about what we are doing, who we are doing it with, what we like to buy, and indeed what we are thinking about, than ever before,” said Nojeim, of the Center for Democracy & Technology.

Jessica Katzenstein, a cultural anthropologist and assistant professor at Arizona State University, said technological advances have also changed what Americans consider normal, making forms of live, mass surveillance that once seemed dystopian increasingly commonplace.

“The things that we would have taken for granted as forms of privacy we can all expect have just completely vanished,” she said.

That normalization can make surveillance difficult to roll back once law enforcement agencies have invested in the technology and incorporated it into their work, she said.

“Once you have a sense of both a need and access to tools, it will be very, very difficult to get you to give that up,” said Katzenstein, who also studies police in the U.S. as an ethnographer.

Communities living with the consequences

The expansion of surveillance after 9/11 also had consequences that were not felt equally. American Muslims faced heightened scrutiny in the name of national security, and advocates say the surveillance practices and assumptions that emerged in that period have since affected other communities of color.

Haris Tarin, vice president of policy and programming for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who also spent more than a decade working in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said many American Muslims experienced the aftermath of 9/11 as a “dual attack.”

“We were attacked twice. First by the terrorists, we were attacked for being Americans, and then we were attacked by our own government and people within our own country, where we were cast under suspicion, and that has continued for the last 25 years,” Tarin said.

Tarin said that suspicion soon extended beyond American Muslims to other communities.

“After 9/11, American Muslims were easy to go after because there was not much political consequence,” he said. “But it just didn’t stop with American Muslims. We’ve seen that now extend to immigrants. We’ve seen that now extend to anti-Semitism. We’ve seen that now extend to anti-Black hate.”

Lia Nitake, senior director of technology, telecommunications and media policy at Asian Americans Advancing Justice, said the consequences have been particularly pronounced for communities of color. She said the heightened surveillance of people based on their race, religion or other aspects of their identity has created a climate of fear.

“In a lot of ways, these surveillance measures have also eroded this idea that everyone should have an equal right to privacy,” Nitake said. 

Both Tarin and Nitake said the growing use of artificial intelligence raises new concerns about how those disparities could be reproduced or amplified. Police agencies could increasingly rely on technology to monitor communities rather than invest in relationships with them, Tarin said.

“In the AI age, it will be easy for government agencies and law enforcement agencies to use technology to surveil and not do the hard work of community policing and engaging communities,” he said.

Stronger surveillance systems

Police departments nationwide are already using AI-assisted tools to analyze evidence, search databases, draft reports and translate conversations in real time.

North Carolina Central University Police Chief Robert Gaddy, who previously served as a Durham police officer for more than 25 years, sees the technology as a practical response to the growing demands on modern policing.

Information that once had to be gathered and shared manually can now flow through centralized digital systems, while AI-assisted cameras and license plate readers help officers identify suspects, gather evidence and solve crimes.

“If I can take this technology and at least give that (victim’s) security back to them by solving this crime, it’s worth every every bit of it,” Gaddy said.

Gaddy said technology can also help departments facing staffing shortages. But he said its use requires clear limits and oversight, including rules governing how officers access and share information and audits to identify potential misuse.

Still, some experts and advocates worry that newer AI-assisted systems could make existing surveillance infrastructure significantly more powerful by connecting databases that previously operated separately. Some tools allow officers to search multiple databases using natural-language prompts and generate summaries, raising questions about accuracy, missing information and how much officers may rely on the results.

Nojeim, of the Center on Democracy & Technology, said those concerns become especially serious when AI is used in decisions that can affect someone’s liberty.

“We all know from our work or our play with AI that it can make mistakes and that it hallucinates,” he said. “Now we’re in a world where an AI hallucination can be the thing that set off an investigation that landed you in jail inappropriately.”

Modern law enforcement agencies have access to more information than any human could reasonably process, said Viola, the adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. AI could help investigators identify connections that might otherwise be missed. But Viola said those capabilities also come with risks.

“These are very capable tools that can be used to great effect for the betterment of American society and safety,” Viola said. “They can also be used for ill effect if there is an administration who wants to use them for such activity.”

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — Latino advocacy groups and voting rights organizations Thursday filed a suit in federal court challenging the Trump administration’s policy of allowing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to enter polling locations in certain circumstances to conduct immigration enforcement during the 2026 midterm elections. 

The suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia argues that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin’s recent comments that ICE agents would be at polling locations for the purpose of immigration enforcement violates federal law that prohibits federal “armed men” at election sites. 

The statute allows for “troops” or “armed men” at polling locations only if “such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.” 

“The specter of armed officers at polling places threatens the freedom of this upcoming election,” according to the lawsuit. “It places voters in fear that they will be confronted by armed federal immigration enforcement officers if they choose to cast a ballot.”

In a statement to States Newsroom, a DHS spokesperson said that “ICE is not planning operations targeting polling locations.” 

“ICE conducts intelligence-driven targeted enforcement, and if an active public safety threat endangered a polling location, they may be arrested as a result of that targeted enforcement action,” the spokesperson said. 

Earlier this month, Mullin said that ICE officers at polling locations would be there “to enforce specific threats.” 

“The only reason why we would be at polling places, if there is a threat to that polling place or we’re serving a warrant on someone that we have been actively tracking down,” he said. “ICE’s job is immigration (and) custom enforcement. That’s their job and so if we’re doing something, we’re doing that specifically.”

The suit asks the federal court to prevent the Trump administration from following that polling place policy and declaring it unlawful, as well as barring “officers from operating or carrying weapons in the vicinity of open polling places, including dropboxes, curbside voting locations, and similar places where votes are taken, collected, received, counted, or certified during early voting periods and on Election Day itself, for any reason other than repelling armed enemies of the United States.”

The civil rights groups that joined the suit said the tactic would lead to voter suppression.

“Sending armed ICE officers to polling places is not immigration enforcement — it is voter suppression, plain and simple,” UnidosUS President Janet Murguía said in a statement. “All Americans — including Latino voters  — have a constitutional right to cast their ballot without fear of interrogation, detention, or family separation.”

The suit was filed by the oldest U.S. Latino civil rights organization, League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC; the largest Hispanic civil rights organization, UnidosUS; the voter mobilization group Common Cause; and the city and county of Denver, Colorado, which has a large immigrant population and has been targeted by ICE multiple times for immigration enforcement. 

“The right to vote, and to do so without fear of intimidation, is fundamental to our democracy and to being an American,” Denver Mayor Mike Johnston said in a statement. “Stationing ICE agents near polling places is only meant to scare people and suppress votes. We’ll fight tooth and nail to prevent it.”

Women on parole report higher rates of housing instability, poor health and serious mental health and substance use disorders than men on parole and women who weren’t on parole, according to a new analysis from the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice.

For people leaving prison, parole is a period of transition that can involve finding housing and work, reconnecting with family and accessing health care while also meeting the conditions of supervision. How well those pieces come together can shape whether someone successfully settles back into the community — a key part, some argue, of reducing future involvement with the criminal justice system and promoting public safety.

The council’s latest report examined nationally representative 2021-2023 data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, comparing women who reported being on parole both with women who were not on parole and with men who were on parole.

About 13% of women on parole reported moving three or more times in the previous year, compared with 2% of women who were not on parole and 6% of men on parole, according to the analysis.

Women on parole also were more likely to report poor health. About 29% rated their overall health as fair or poor, compared with 16% of women not on parole and 17% of men on parole.

About 24% of women on parole met the criteria for a severe mental health disorder, compared with 7% of women not on parole and 10% of men on parole, according to the council’s report. About 25% of women on parole also reported experiencing a major depressive episode during the previous year, compared with 10% of women not on parole and 12% of men on parole.

The analysis found that substance use disorders were common among people on parole, but severe disorders were more prevalent among women. About 32% of women on parole met the criteria for a severe substance use disorder, compared with 24% of men on parole and 3% of women not on parole.

The disparity was especially large for opioid use. About 18% of women on parole met the criteria for a severe opioid use disorder, compared with 5% of men on parole and 0.4% of women not on parole.

Health and housing can make the demands of reentry harder to manage, including maintaining employment, attending treatment and supervision appointments, and managing family responsibilities, according to the report.

Women on parole also were more likely than men on parole to report living in a household with minor children. About 29% of women on parole lived in a household with at least one child under 18, compared with 19% of men on parole and 30% of women who were not on parole.

The survey, however, did not indicate whether respondents were parents, caregivers or financially responsible for the children, according to the report.

Health insurance coverage also differed among the groups. About 11% of women on parole reported being uninsured, compared with 7% of women not on parole and 20% of men on parole, according to the analysis.

The report’s authors wrote that the findings point to the need for reentry planning that goes beyond supervision requirements to address housing, health care, mental health and substance use treatment and family responsibilities. The authors could not determine whether the conditions preceded or resulted from criminal justice involvement, but the findings strongly suggest women on parole face distinct reentry challenges.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — For years, Jose Palma has advocated for immigrants with Temporary Protected Status who hail from countries deemed too unstable for return.

But as the Trump administration has stripped those humanitarian protections for nearly a million people, the Salvadoran national is uncertain if his own legal status will remain in place next week. 

“I’m going day by day,” Palma, who lives in Texas, told States Newsroom in an interview. 

Within two years under the Trump administration, the bipartisan humanitarian Temporary Protected Status program created by Congress in 1990 and signed into law by former Republican President George H.W. Bush has been nearly obliterated.

Palma first obtained TPS in 2001, along with roughly 170,000 recipients from El Salvador, due to several earthquakes that displaced more than one-sixth of the population and left thousands dead. The United States renewed protections over the years, citing continued displacement and ongoing violence.

But the TPS designation for El Salvador is set to expire Sept. 9, and the Department of Homeland Security has made no indication if protections will be renewed. 

Under DHS policy, an announcement typically is made 60 days in advance of the date of a TPS expiration if a renewal is planned. 

Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, who helped write the statute for TPS when he was a congressional staffer, said he’s asked Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to renew protections for El Salvador.

“I still haven’t received a response back,” McGovern said during a Thursday press conference at the U.S. Capitol. He was joined by Nebraska GOP Rep. Don Bacon, who said many Salvadoran TPS recipients work and live in his Omaha district. 

DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment. 

The Trump administration’s position on the program is that it’s “temporary,” and that country conditions have improved, despite warnings from the State Department to not travel to some of those countries where TPS designation has ended, such as Haiti.

If TPS for El Salvador ends, only 103,000 out of initially 1.3 million recipients from around the globe will have protections: 150 from Lebanon, 1,790 from Sudan and 101,150 from Ukraine.

Supreme Court decision

TPS is granted to nationals who hail from a country experiencing a natural disaster, violence, or other extreme circumstances, allowing them to remain in the U.S. and obtain work permits. 

Some protections can last through six-to-18-month cycles, and each renewal process requires a TPS holder to go through a background check and other vetting.  

Before the second Trump administration, 17 countries were in the program. Only four, including El Salvador, remain as the White House has forged ahead aggressively on its mass deportation campaign. 

The Supreme Court made the move easier after it ruled this summer that decisions from the executive branch to end TPS were not subject to judicial review. The order meant that lower courts that initially blocked the Trump administration from ending the designations had to reverse their decisions.

Now recipients face the end of TPS with just 60 days’ notice.

“It’s one of those things that is kind of cruel, to have families who are stable and have been stable for decades, to have people who have been doing everything the government asked them to do for 25 years, and suddenly, if the decision is to end TPS, provided only 60 days protection before forcing people to go back to a country they haven’t been for decades,” Palma said. 

One of the first countries after TPS was written into law to receive the designation was El Salvador. 

Stripping TPS from Salvadorans would not only harm the U.S. economy, but it would also negatively impact El Salvador’s fragile economy, advocates predict. More than one quarter of El Salvador’s Gross Domestic Product comes from family members sending money back to relatives in their country of origin, known as remittances. 

“El Salvador’s economy has been built thanks to all the remittances,” said Ana María Méndez-Dardón, the director for Central America at the Washington Office on Latin America, or WOLA.  “So if people are returning, that would have a huge impact because the economy depends on the money that people from El Salvador living in the U.S. send to El Salvador.”

The spending also has an impact in the United States. Salvadoran TPS recipients contribute $5.4 billion to the U.S. economy and pay $1.5 billion in federal, state and local taxes, according to the immigration advocacy research group FWD.us. 

About 152,000 TPS recipients from El Salvador are in the workforce, mainly in construction, manufacturing, building and transportation.

Attempts in Congress

TPS does not create a pathway to citizenship and a recipient can only apply for it when the country receives its designation. 

Some TPS recipients can apply for asylum if they qualify, or others could apply to adjust their status to that of a lawful permanent resident, or green-card holder, through a family-based or employer-based petition. 

Congress has made some effort to extend TPS for some recipients. Earlier this year, the House passed a bill to extend TPS for up to 350,000 Haitians on a bipartisan basis, but it’s stalled in the upper chamber. 

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen attempted to advance a bill in the Senate to create a legal pathway to citizenship for immigrants with TPS, but was blocked by Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt. 

McGovern said Thursday that there is a bipartisan push to extend protections for TPS recipients. Proof of that was Bacon’s presence at the press conference.

“What good is it to force out folks who’ve been here legally, who are working, who are part of our community?” Bacon said. “It does no one any good.”

Human rights in El Salvador

Many Salvadorian TPS recipients are worried about being forced back to El Salvador, where human rights groups have raised concerns about the authoritarian government of President Nayib Bukele, said WOLA’s Méndez-Dardón.

WOLA is a research and advocacy group that aims to advance human rights in North and South America. It has documented how Bukele’s political party has suspended due process rights and has carried out a mass incarceration of suspected gang members in an effort to reduce crime and murders. 

More than 90,000 Salvadorans have been jailed without due process and hundreds have died in prisons and altogether disappeared, human rights groups have reported.

“So for Salvadorians who might be returned, the risk no longer are the criminal groups or the gangs because many of them fled the country because of the security situation,” Méndez-Dardón said. “But although the gangs are no longer the threat, now the threat is the state.” 

Bukele has met with President Donald Trump several times at the White House and has a years-long working relationship with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who last year granted El Salvador the highest possible safety rating for travel, a level 1. 

In 2024, the State Department gave El Salvador a level 3 advisory, warning people to reconsider travel because of security and safety concerns.

The Trump administration also last year made a deal with the Salvadoran government to pay up to $6 million to detain hundreds of Venezuelans at a brutal mega-prison. In the high-profile case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland Salvadoran who was mistakenly deported to the mega prison, lawyers documented mental and physical torture he experienced while there. 

“People are basically under a constant fear of being detained by the security forces,” Méndez-Dardón said. 

U.S. citizen children

Palma, who also attended the press conference, said he, along with other Salvadoran TPS recipients, are concerned about El Salvador’s government.

“So crime has gone down, but now abuses to human rights have increased,” he said. “That is concerning, because it’s also the government is becoming more aggressive against opposition, public media.”

Palma questioned if El Salvador would have the infrastructure to accept as many as 200,000 Salvadorans, made up of the TPS recipients and their families. Many have U.S. citizen children. 

Palma, who has four U.S. citizen children, said two of his kids are still in primary school. One is 11 and another is 8 years old. 

“This is their country,” he said of his four children. “They are from here. But if I were to lose the TPS protection and I were to be forced to go back to El Salvador, it’s not just affecting me. It’s affecting the whole family. That’s kind of like the situation that so many people across the country are going through right now.”

Supporting her mom

There are roughly 150,000 U.S. citizen children who have a parent who is a Salvadoran TPS recipient, according to the National TPS alliance. 

Cristel Argueta is one of those children. At 20 years old, she’s a college student at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey. But on Thursday, she missed four classes relating to her criminology and criminal justice degree to travel to the nation’s capital and advocate for an extension to TPS for El Salvador. 

“I’m missing class to be here, but it’s worth it because it’s for my family,” she said.

Her mother, a TPS holder from El Salvador, came to the U.S. when she was 19, fleeing the civil war that lasted from 1979 until 1992. Her mother was able to get TPS in 2001.

“She has been in this country longer than she has been in El Salvador,” Argueta said. “TPS was started by Salvadorans, and I don’t want to lose my mother.” 

She’s hoping her mother’s TPS is extended until at least Argueta’s 21st birthday, when Argueta will be able to become a sponsor and apply to change her mother’s status to that of a lawful permanent resident. 

“No one should be going through this at any age,” she said. “Seeing the difference in my peers at school who are 20 years old, waiting to turn 21, to get that first legal drink or go party, but I want to turn 21 just to give my mom a legal status. A permanent legal status.”

Leaders in cybersecurity and rural water systems said that local providers have few resources to defend against attacks.

The post Wisconsin water utilities at risk from cyberattack wave sweeping the country appeared first on WPR.

China and the EU: Comparing Two Tech-Forward Plans for the Future of Food Production The EU and China have each released new strategic...

The post China and the EU: Comparing Two Tech-Forward Plans for the Future of Food Production appeared first on Cleantech Group.