Increased armed guards at U.S. Postal Service facilities may signal an effort by President Donald Trump to control the mail before the midterms, scholars and union leaders warn.USPS plans to deploy more contracted armed security officers at 18 mail facilities across the country this month, according to internal agency communications reviewed by Raw Story.The federal agency approved more than 12,000 hours per week of work for the security officers at those facilities combined, adding tens of millions of dollars in labor costs annually while USPS continues to bleed money — clocking $2 billion in net losses in the last financial quarter alone.The Supreme Court dealt Trump a loss last month when it ruled states may count late mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day. Trump countered by pressuring a federal judge to lift a halt on his executive order that would give USPS greater authority to determine who can vote by mail.“Screening mail ballots for eligibility would amount to an unprecedented, potentially unconstitutional, involvement of the federal government in the administration of elections,” said James O’Rourke, emeritus professor of management at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, who studies the postal service.“It's clear that the White House is pressing ahead.”Hiring contracted security guards is “similar” to the hiring of private security firms by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), O’Rourke said.Have a tip? I want to hear it.I'm an investigative reporter covering politics and government accountability. If you have information the public should know — inside government, a campaign or anywhere power operates with too little scrutiny — I want to hear from you."I protect sources and can communicate securely and confidentially.Alexandria Jacobson Investigative Reporter, Raw Storyalexandria@rawstory.com“If they put their own guys in, then they can do anything they want with the ballots,” he said.The increased hiring of security officers comes as the Postal Police Officers Association (PPOA) union remains embroiled in a six-year battle with USPS after the agency effectively benched its own uniformed police officers — limiting them to only working on postal properties, instead of patrolling the streets where letter carriers experienced violence and mail robberies occurred.“They couldn't replace us with armed security guards if we're out in the street protecting the mail and letter carriers,” said Frank Albergo, PPOA president and a retired postal police officer.“If they bring us back to the facilities, take away our authority, they figure, ‘OK, we can replace them with armed security guards,’ but look at the damage that has been caused because of it.”Letter carrier robberies skyrocketed 543 percent over a three-year period, including some robbed at gunpoint or killed on the job, a Raw Story investigation found in 2024.The USPS Office of Inspector General reported in May that the law enforcement arm of USPS, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), made some improvements in its response to a spike in mail theft but had many of the same deficiencies identified in reports since 2023.Albergo said the union has been notified of about 39,000 work hours per week approved for the hire of 972 full-time armed guards across 54 USPS facilities — including 18 that didn't have any before.Jonathan Smith, president of the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) took issue with the hiring of private armed security guards who “do not have a postal patch,” saying that some postal managers are prone to using security guards as “personal Gestapo to intimidate the employees.”“We've already got an arm to secure the safety of the employees, and I don't see the need to bring any outside resources about, outside hiring more postal police officers,” Smith said.‘Ticking time bomb’The number of postal police officers exceeded 2,600 in the 1970s and dwindled to about 450 by 2020. Now, there are 314 postal police officers in the bargaining unit as of May 1, Albergo said.The officers undergo 1,440 hours of training over the course of nine months, including active shooter response, use of force and CPR/AED training, Albergo said.By contrast, an investigation by CNN and the Center for Investigative Reporting found that armed security guards lack consistent training and oversight. “They're basically just giving guns to armed security guards with minimum training,” Albergo said. “No training from the federal government, and they're letting them loose on the workroom floor. It's crazy.” Training standards for armed guards vary by state. In California, for instance, armed guards receive authorization after 54 hours of training, 14 hours of which are firearms training.
Across the country, federal judges are calling out Department of Justice lawyers, questioning in unprecedented ways whether they can be trusted to tell the truth or uphold centuries-old legal norms.From Washington, D.C., to Rhode Island to Oregon, federal judges nominated by presidents from both parties, including Donald Trump, have zeroed in on what’s called “the presumption of regularity.” It essentially means that judges must presume that the government — whether it be federal prosecutors, an IRS auditor or an FBI agent — did their jobs according to the rules and in good faith.Until Trump’s second term, which has seen an exodus of veteran DOJ lawyers and a transformative shift in priorities from issues like enforcing civil rights to instead defending a mass deportation agenda, this foundational tenet had rarely been discussed in federal courtrooms, former judges, lawyers and scholars say. But as Trump’s DOJ exhibits behavior that judges have called “unlawful,” “unethical,” “unseemly” or otherwise dishonest, adherence to that bedrock standard is now being questioned.ProPublica reviewed hundreds of cases since Trump retook the White House in which judges criticized the actions of DOJ lawyers and found more than 40 in which they explicitly referenced the presumption of regularity. In many cases, judges have expressed frustration that they can no longer take the government at its word.“Judges simply don’t believe the representations that are being made by United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys and the like,” said John E. Jones, a former federal judge for the District of Pennsylvania, appointed by President George W. Bush.“I don’t think in the annals of the Department of Justice, in the history of jurisprudence in the United States, we’ve ever seen anything close to this.”In Rhode Island in May, Trump-appointed federal Judge Mary McElroy rebuked federal prosecutors’ conduct — saying they withheld information and misrepresented facts — as she quashed their requests for a subpoena in their investigation into a hospital’s care of transgender children. The judge alleged the DOJ had inappropriately claimed its investigation was operating out of Texas to secure subpoenas targeting sensitive medical records of patients in another state and that it falsely claimed the Rhode Island hospital hadn’t communicated with the department.“The discrepancy between the honorable conduct expected of federal prosecutors and DOJ’s tactics in this case is unsettling,” McElroy wrote. “The Court cannot help but share the sentiment that ‘[t]he presumption of regularity that has previously been extended to [DOJ] that it could be taken at its word — with little doubt about its intentions and stated purposes — no longer holds.’”Judges have emitted a chorus of condemnations against the legal basis for some of Trump’s political agenda, including the mass firings of federal workers, an immigration dragnet that has imprisoned hundreds of U.S. citizens and retribution campaigns against the president’s political enemies.In doing so, federal judges are imbuing forceful language into their orders in a way that scholars say signals to the Trump administration that the third branch of government is losing trust in the Justice Department.“I don’t think in the annals of the Department of Justice, in the history of jurisprudence in the United States, we’ve ever seen anything close to this.” Former federal Judge John E. Jones, a George W. Bush appointeeFederal judges rarely grant interviews, and none of the judges who criticized the Justice Department in their orders granted interviews to ProPublica.In a statement, a spokesperson for the DOJ said its attorneys are “dedicated public servants who represent the United States with integrity, in accordance with their ethical obligations and the law.”“The Department stands firmly behind the professionalism and good faith of its attorneys,” said spokesperson Kiersten Pels. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.Federal judges have found that the government filed statements generated by artificial intelligence that referenced nonexistent case law, wrote briefs that ignored facts and filed declarations with inaccurate dates, the ProPublica review shows.In one case, the government included documentation claiming a detainee had been convicted of marijuana possession in 2009. That detainee, the judge noted, citing what she called the government’s persistent “sloppiness,” would have been 4 years old.“This Court will no longer blindly accept statements of fact from [the U.S. government] unless they are made under oath by an individual with personal knowledge,” Judge Christine O’Hearn, a President Joe Biden appointee, wrote in New Jersey while reviewing a writ of habeas corpus petition filed by a man who claimed he was unlawfully imprisoned by immigration officers.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was caught by surprise by a demand from President Donald Trump in May to lead his department in making a massive sea change in policy.According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, the Health and Human Services secretary was "taken aback" when the president proposed that he ramp up efforts to link autism to childhood vaccinations.Kennedy had previously been explicitly told to "tone down his anti-vaccine crusade" ahead of the midterms. White House political advisers worried his controversial positions would alienate voters. So Kennedy complied, muzzling himself in service of the midterm strategy.Then Trump blindsided him.At a May lunch at the presidential golf course in northern Virginia, Trump personally demanded Kennedy make vaccine-autism link research a "priority" — directly contradicting the guidance Kennedy had received just weeks earlier.According to the Journal, "The issue has been an ongoing point of tension between the two men. In a mid-June meeting in the Oval Office, the president vented to Kennedy that he wasn’t doing enough, people familiar with the matter said."The message was unmistakable: Kennedy's tenure at HHS hinges on making progress on vaccine-autism research — a discredited theory with no scientific basis."The president has made clear he thinks he has given Kennedy enough time and is disappointed the health secretary hasn’t accomplished more in the past year and a half," people familiar with the president's thinking told the Journal.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may be out of a job sooner rather than later, with President Donald Trump reportedly having already selected his successor.As part of a report on the president pressuring the controversial Cabinet member to ramp up studies linking childhood vaccines to autism, with the president thinking he is not "doing his job," the Wall Street Journal is reporting this might be the beginning of the end for Kennedy.According to the Journal, Trump has already begun grooming Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator, as Kennedy's potential replacement. White House insiders and HHS staff privately speculate Oz will eventually take over — potentially after the midterm elections, a "traditional time" for cabinet reshuffles."The president often calls or texts Oz on health policy matters that have nothing to do with his agency, people familiar with the matter said, and Oz takes responsibility for ensuring the president gets what he wants," the report notes before adding, "Oz advised the president on marijuana ahead of an executive order in December to loosen restrictions on the drug, some of the people said. Oz, an adept surrogate for the administration on TV and in the halls of Congress, is also a favorite of the White House staff.As for Kennedy, he has been under scrutiny for months. Last winter, White House aides launched a "top-to-bottom review" of his department management, citing infighting between HHS and the FDA. Two top leaders were reassigned, and Kennedy's advisory team was restructured.The MAHA movement erupted in chaos this summer when rumors of Kennedy's imminent departure spread across social media. Dr. Robert Malone, a Kennedy associate, posted on X that Kennedy would leave after July 4 and that Oz was heading a transition team.Oz himself appeared at an exclusive gathering near the White House to insist the story was false, the Journal is reporting.Kennedy's son, Robert F. Kennedy III, reportedly exclaiming to attendees, "My dad's not a quitter!"The report notes that Kennedy wants to "survive" and "even to stay on as secretary into the next president’s administration, according to people familiar with his thinking."
TRUMP: ‘PLENTY OF TIME, PATIENCE, AMMUNITION’: No matter what happens in the war with Iran, President Donald Trump’s public face is always one of unbridled optimism. Such was the case on Air Force One, as Trump headed for a rally in Michigan. Is the war going poorly after 150 days? No way. “They requested a […]
Two outgoing GOP senators previously burned by President Donald Trump are threatening to sink a White House priority as a critical committee vote nears Thursday, Punchbowl News reported Tuesday.Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, whom Trump nominated last month for the permanent role after firing Pam Bondi, is scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday for his confirmation vote, just 48 hours away as of Tuesday morning. But Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) – both leaving Congress after pressure from Trump – are “holding firm” against confirming Blanche without getting something in return.“Both senators, whose votes are needed for Blanche to advance to the Senate floor, are demanding that the Justice Department formally eliminate the ‘anti-weaponization’ fund and curtail an audit immunity deal for President Donald Trump,” Punchbowl News’ report reads.“Both senators seem comfortable holding out to force DOJ’s hand, threatening a delay of Blanche’s committee vote that could stifle GOP leaders’ plans to confirm Blanche on the floor before the August recess.”Tillis told Punchbowl News that an agreement had yet to be reached on eliminating the Justice Department’s anti-weaponization fund, a taxpayer-funded $1.7 billion fund dedicated to awarding payouts to those who’ve claimed to have been unfairly targeted by the Biden Administration. He also said no deal had been reached on curtailing Trump and his family’s newfound immunity from tax audits.Tillis warned that, unless his and Cornyn’s demands were met, they’d “just have to delay” Blanche's confirmation.Both senators are part of a growing list of GOP “apostates” – Republican lawmakers ousted by Trump for various reasons – who’ve gone on to become well-positioned to undercut the White House’s agenda without fear of repercussions. Others include Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who lost his primary race after voting to rein in the president’s war powers, and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), defeated by a Trump-backed opponent after spearheading the Epstein Files Transparency Act, much to the chagrin of the president.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is again taking aim at Cuba. This time, however, the Trump administration is framing Havana as a decades-long sponsor of terrorism and espionage that has helped cultivate the “radical left” in the United States.As part of this, the administration is making pains to link Cuba with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which is growing politically in the US, thanks to Zohran Mamdani’s win as New York City mayor and other victories.And it comes against the backdrop of fear-mongering by US President Donald Trump about the prospect of communism threatening the US again. He has specifically linked Democrats to communism, as well.So, why is the Trump administration making this spurious argument, and why now? What the administration is allegingLast week, the US State Department published a nearly 100-page report titled “Cuba: The Capital of 21st Century Communism”. The report’s core claim is that Cuba has spent over half a century influencing and aiding the domestic left in the US. Among its more extraordinary allegations:the far-left Weather Underground had direct contact with Cuban officials and Cuban spies in the 1970s, who helped facilitate the group’s bombings in the USdelegations of other “American radicals” travelled to Cuba during that decade to learn urban terrorism and guerrilla tactics Cuban intelligence today treats infiltrating US universities as a top priority leftist activists in the US and elsewhere routinely make “revolutionary tourism” excursions to the island, and the DSA specifically maintains a “fierce, almost religious commitment to the cause of the Cuban regime”.That framing collapses under scrutiny. The report anchors its argument in a handful of genuine espionage and terrorism cases. But it then tries to connect these with more innocuous activities: attending a Cuban-organised trip, expressing solidarity with Havana, or opposing the US embargo on the island. This echoes a long US tradition of using national security as a premise to target leftist movements. This includes everything from the targeting of civil rights and labour organisers during the McCarthy era to the Cold War surveillance of anti-war activists.Equally telling is what the report leaves out: six decades of documented US covert action against Cuba, including assassination plots and support for armed exile groups.The report also came just days after Rubio convened delegations from dozens of countries in Washington for a conference on “resurgent far-left political terrorism”. At the event, he said the threat of far-left violence “can no longer be denied” and that it was “time to crush this evil forever”. And in May, the White House released a new counterterrorism strategy that called “violent left-wing extremists” one of three terror threats facing the US (alongside narcoterrorists and Islamist terror groups). There was no mention of neo-Nazi or other far-right groups. Why now?Viewed against this wider context, the State Department report dramatically amplifies the Trump administration’s pressure campaign on Cuba. In the past few months, Washington has imposed an oil blockade on Cuba, expanded economic sanctions against the island, directly sanctioned President Miguel Díaz-Canel and members of former leader Raúl Castro’s family, and secured a criminal indictment against Castro himself.This economic warfare has pushed the island towards humanitarian collapse. UN experts have condemned it as a serious violation of international law.Trump has repeatedly floated a “friendly takeover” of Cuba, and his officials have not ruled out direct military action if Havana does not yield. Rubio’s report and recent statements now provide the ideological framework to justify such an action.What is driving the timing of this coordinated campaign is harder to explain. However, two factors appear to be converging. First, the administration is seeking a foreign policy “victory” after the costly and inconclusive war with Iran. The other is the midterm elections in November. A hardline stance on Cuba could help the Republican Party shore up support with its base. It also allows the party to frame the US left as being aligned with foreign forces and supporters of “communism”.The more consequential question is what could come next. The administration has created a premise for action on several fronts: further measures against Havana, including a possible military operationexpanded moves against US left-wing organisations, such as targeting their tax-exempt status or fundingdesignating left-wing groups as terror organisations, and increased pressure on European governments to act against their own leftist organisations.The brunt of the Trump administration’s actions, however, will be felt by the Cuban people themselves, who have long been scapegoats and collateral damage of their powerful neighbour to the north.
