In late spring 2020, a source I knew to be reliable called me with a story. The Dutch government had hacked into Jared Kushner’s phone and monitored him as he accessed a Dubai-based bank account. What was odd, the source said, was that the money in the account—hundreds of millions of dollars—had come from a bank in Azerbaijan. Most importantly, Kushner appeared to have transferred significant amounts of money from the Dubai account to other individuals, including a warlord, a mercenary and a one-time hit man. The story sounded preposterous, I told my source. And yet.

Six months later, I found myself speaking with someone else about the UAE government and their use of mercenaries in conflicts around the Middle East and Africa when I asked, on a whim, whether they knew anything about Kushner and bank transfers from a UAE account. My acquaintance grew quiet. Then they replied, “Yes.”

Over the next four years, I came to learn that, sometime in late 2017, the Netherlands Defense Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) made a startling discovery. A General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (GRU) operative, a dark web hacker specializing in stolen bank data, was traveling to the UK for an espionage mission. They reached out to the British government for permission to apprehend him when he arrived. The British agreed.

When the Russian national arrived in England, the Dutch informed him that he had two options: he could work for them against the GRU, or the British would arrest him. Once in UK government custody, the operative would be charged with espionage. If convicted, he would spend years in a British prison. The Russian chose to change his employer.

Later that year, the Russian operative gave the Dutch spies access to one of the GRU’s most sensitive assets. Located in Rostov, Russia, the GRU’s hacking and cyber team operated a remote server on which they stored some of their bounty. During their search through these secret files, the Dutch found something astonishing: screenshots of Jared Kushner’s iPhone.

In The Hague, the MIVD hacking team tried to reverse engineer the Russian penetration of Kushner’s iPhone. Kushner owned what was then the latest model, the iPhone X. Released in November 2017, it featured Face ID, a state-of-the-art security feature that Apple had promoted at its launch. The Dutch team had been trying to pick the phone’s door lock, so to speak, when it occurred to them that the Russians may have found an unlocked window to gain entry instead. Their hypothesis was correct. By early 2018, the MIVD had found a vulnerability in the iPhone that gave them access. The security exploit wasn’t perfect, however. Some malware allows a hacker to turn a victim’s phone into a microphone and video camera, turn the phone on or off, and pull and add files. The Dutch solution did not provide that level of access. Instead, when Kushner used the phone, they could see his screen. Almost as soon as they got inside, the intelligence service began capturing every image of Kushner’s screen as he used it, filing their own cache of surveillance on their internal computer servers.

As they monitored Kushner’s phone, they discovered he used it to log in to a UAE bank account. By the time the Dutch spies had visibility into the phone, the account had received hundreds of millions of dollars from a bank in Azerbaijan. Their initial assessment was that the bank account was affiliated with the government there.

For the MIVD hackers, the bank account became an intelligence mystery to unravel. Nearly everything they worked on had a tinge of Russian conspiracy. A little over a year into Trump’s first presidency, the MIVD, like FBI agents and federal prosecutors in Washington working on the Robert Mueller investigation, had only part of the story.

Kushner, UAE ruler Mohamed bin Zayed (MBZ) and Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) of Saudi Arabia, converged at an auspicious moment. MBS wanted to be crown prince. MBZ wanted to blow up Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, and Kushner wanted both to help him force the Palestinians into a deal that Israel would accept. Despite the perception of his wealth, Kushner was not entirely financially independent of his parents, and the family business, Kushner Companies, faced a billion-dollar loan coming due on their trophy property, the Manhattan office building at 666 Fifth Avenue.

Early in the first Trump administration, MBZ and MBS offered to pay for a slush fund dedicated to helping the new administration with foreign policy goals. The idea was to help pay for Trump’s promised wall between Mexico and the US, for example, in an effort to secure a second term in the White House. The two Arab royals initially discussed with Kushner putting more than $10 billion into the effort. Within months, though, as MBZ pushed the Trump administration to help back MBS’s effort to become his country’s crown prince—and future king—the broader foreign policy slush fund idea fizzled. Instead, MBZ and MBS initially, and then MBZ alone, put at least $2 billion into at least two bank accounts for Kushner. It is unclear how the royals organized their $2 billion in combined payments, but they effectively split the cost. For the purposes of explanation, it is best to understand where and how each bank account was controlled.

Bank account Alpha was held at First Abu Dhabi Bank, the largest in the UAE, and was overseen by MBZ’s brother, Tahnoon bin Zayed, who served as the bank’s chairman. Beginning in 2017, the Saudis and Emiratis transferred roughly $750 million into the Alpha account. Alpha would be used as a foreign policy fund. This money would be overseen and partially managed by Kushner and MBZ, who, in their effort to strike a grand bargain to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, believed the region’s map needed to be redrawn.

“Jared was looking for shortcuts in his diplomacy,” a source who knew of the UAE’s deal with Kushner said. This person held discussions with both senior UAE and Israeli officials about the secret financial arrangement between Kushner, the UAE, and, at least initially, Saudi Arabia. “Jared promised MBZ that he’d push their agenda with Trump if they participated in a fund. He wanted normalization with Israel so that business could take off.” A slush fund—a shared pool of money for off-the-books diplomatic objectives—was a common form of Gulf Arab government corruption, this person explained. “The Emiratis and the Saudis do this once a year. A billion or two is nothing for them, and if it gets them what they want, it’s money well spent.”

The Alpha account looked like the funding source of a UAE government program, by which MBZ paid his bureaucrats their salaries or funded government-run schools. But how and through whom the money flowed into the Alpha account revealed that it was intended to remain secret, more akin to a covert and illicit scheme, given that it was managed in part by a senior advisor to the president of the United States.

The Dutch spies who monitored the Alpha account noted that all of it was sent by a bank in Azerbaijan in American dollars. Azerbaijan plays a unique role in money laundering. Its central bank maintains high levels of US dollars in its reserves but does not adhere to the highest standards of bank transparency. As a result, Azerbaijani banks have well-established but unadvertised practices of serving as way stations for large transfers, in which a foreign currency is exchanged for an equal amount in dollars. For a roughly 6 to 7 percent fee on the transaction, some Azerbaijani banks will accept a transfer from a client who wishes to move Saudi riyals or Emirati dirhams totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. The Saudi or Emirati client sends the money to the Azerbaijani bank, which then uses a different internal bank account to transfer the equivalent US dollars to the client’s requested destination. For auditors, this shadow trade can’t be discerned.

A shallow audit, as the Dutch tried while monitoring Kushner’s iPhone, revealed nothing more than what appeared to be an Azerbaijani government–linked bank account that sent hundreds of millions of dollars to an account in Dubai. But there was another aspect of the Alpha account that the Dutch couldn’t see or understand, one that helped reveal the secret purpose of the money. Kushner did not own the bank account at First Abu Dhabi Bank. He was a signatory for an account managed and owned by an Emirati charity.

When MBZ and MBS first began contributing to the Alpha account in 2017, the Watani Al Emarat Foundation, a UAE government-funded charity, was run by Dherar Belhoul Al Falasi. Al Falasi was a technocrat and a member of the Federal National Council, and friends with one of MBZ’s closest friends and advisors. As a result, Al Falasi and the Watani Foundation had a second mission. The charity was used as a cover to move money in support of the country’s secret military and intelligence operations overseas. Under the Watani cover, Al Falasi helped facilitate the UAE’s secret weapons-purchasing programs, one confidential source who had direct knowledge of the charity’s proliferation program revealed. This source said that the Emiratis believed that the program’s status as a charity made its international transactions less likely to be scrutinized and therefore served as a useful cover for funding MBZ and his brother’s secret wars.

MBZ and Tahnoon made Kushner a signatory on the Alpha account with Watani. As a signatory, Jared had access to it and could, in theory, make transactions, but it technically wasn’t his account. One way to view what Kushner did with the Alpha account is to imagine him as the director of the CIA. Had he been running the government entity that managed and ran secret foreign programs, maintaining the account, again, with presidential approval and congressional disclosure, Kushner’s conduct would have been within his job’s responsibilities. But he was not the director of the CIA, whose position is approved by the Senate and whose operations are overseen and accountable to Congress. Instead, Kushner was overseen only by his father-in-law, who, according to four senior Trump administration officials—two national security advisors, a White House chief of staff, and a former CIA director—were unaware of any presidential authorization for Kushner to access a foreign government bank account. (Kushner’s counsel, however, said Kushner did not make any agreements or arrangements with leaders or officials in foreign countries that were not agreed to by the President of the United States and in the best interests of the United States.)

Regardless of whether he was a signatory or the owner, Jared was required by federal government regulations and the Internal Revenue Service to disclose his access to the account. Unless disclosed to and approved by the US government and reported on his tax returns, Kushner’s access to the Alpha account may have violated US law. (A lawyer for Mr. Kushner denied that his client had any knowledge of or connection to Al Falasi, the Watani charity, or a UAE bank account and stated that he had complied with all legal requirements when dealing with foreign governments.)

In addition to the Alpha bank account, MBZ put money into at least one other account intended for Kushner. By the spring of 2018, the crown prince had moved roughly $1 billion to Israel via Azerbaijan for Kushner. We will refer to this account as the Beta bank account. It is unclear how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu first learned of MBZ’s money for Kushner, but a person briefed on the Beta account told me that the prime minister encouraged Kushner to have the money deposited in the Israeli Central Bank, in what would appear to be a government account. It is also unclear how Kushner used the money the UAE deposited into the Beta account for him, but according to the person with knowledge of the money, its allocation was for Kushner’s personal benefit. But as with the Alpha account, there were clues in the way the Beta account was managed.

Israel’s Central Bank does not operate personal accounts. The bank holds and transfers only government funds. The government accounts use a dual-key system, which requires two authorized individuals to make any transfers from the account as an oversight mechanism. Netanyahu required Kushner to inform him before making any transactions from the Beta account.

To do so, Kushner passed his messages through Ambassador David M. Friedman, who frequently met with Netanyahu. With the money in the Central Bank, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to connect MBZ’s payment to Jared. It is unclear if spies in the Netherlands had any indication of the Beta account. (Ambassador Friedman denied that he had any knowledge of, or involvement with, any UAE money made available to Kushner, or that he passed messages on Kushner’s behalf. “I know absolutely nothing about any of these allegations,” Friedman said, “and the specific allegations about me or my alleged involvement in this alleged scheme are 100% false.” Kushner’s counsel also said Kushner “has no idea” about any such account, and insisted that “there are no accounts and never were.”)

Apparently, Kushner faced the challenge of moving money from the Beta account in Israel to other accounts where he could have untraceable access to the funds. One person who worked with Kushner to move the money out of Israel said that much of it went to bank accounts in Cyprus before being moved elsewhere.

During Kushner’s secret financial arrangement with MBZ, he helped negotiate a third, altogether distinct account. As part of what was, at the time, a secret warming of diplomatic relations between Israel and the UAE, Kushner helped negotiate an agreement by Israel to help defend the UAE from a major Iranian military attack. The UAE needed to cover the cost of the emergency defense, however, and the government secretly made another transfer to Israel’s Central Bank. This was something like a rainy-day defense fund. Combined, the three accounts represented a secret foreign policy negotiated by Kushner with the leaders of Israel, the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

Although Kushner’s position as senior advisor to the president was unpaid, he was an official government employee. Not only did his position require financial disclosures for ethics regulations, but each year he worked in the White House, he had to file both a public and confidential financial form, known as the Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report, also known as a 278e disclosure. Because he had access to classified government secrets, Kushner was required to disclose any bank account to which he had signatory—or beneficiary—access.

Kushner’s apparent betrayal of the public trust, however, went further than his failure to disclose the secret Alpha account in the UAE or the Beta account in Israel. By giving him access to roughly $2 billion, regardless of how the money was used, MBZ and MBS were paying for his influence within the US government. Any efforts he made to shape US policy that came from a foreign government that had provided him with money would make him an agent of a foreign power. US law requires citizens who lobby on behalf of a foreign power to declare themselves and the country they are working on behalf of to the Justice Department.

One former prosecutor who worked on the Mueller investigation said that if Kushner promised anything to MBZ and MBS in return for the money they offered him—even if it was just speaking to his father-in-law—he may have violated federal bribery laws, as well as the foreign agent statute. (Mr. Kushner’s lawyer denied that Kushner violated any laws while serving in the White House.)

Ukraine's military Starlink service is still operating at a speed cap of 161 kilometers per hour, a Ukrainian official told the Kyiv Independent on Oct. 22.

The official's statement contradicts claims quoted by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), which reported on Oct. 22 that Starlink functionality was back to normal in Ukraine following a phone call between SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump called Musk on Oct. 21 to request he lift restrictions on Ukraine's Starshield service, the military application of the Starlink program, according to the WSJ. Following the call, sources reportedly told the outlet that Starlink was functioning more normally — though some Ukrainian officials said it wasn't fully restored.

But when asked about these claims, a Ukrainian official told the Kyiv Independent they were "all false."

"Overall, nothing has changed anywhere," the official said. The 161 kph speed cap remains in place, severely limiting key military operations, including mid-range strikes and high-speed drone interceptions.

Trump was evasive about whether or not he called Musk, but also claimed that Starlink was back up and running as usual in Ukraine in comments to reporters.

"Yeah, I don't want to comment on it, whether I called, or whether somebody else called, it doesn't make a difference," Trump told a journalist when questioned about the WSJ story.

"The bottom line, (Musk) put it back."

Ukraine has been trying to sort out the reasons behind the restriction — and restore service to its previous speed level — ever since Starlink was disrupted without warning on Oct. 14. While fingers have been pointed at SpaceX, the White House, and a Trump-Musk alliance, no one has claimed responsibility for the move.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio denied that Trump had a hand in the change, saying on Oct. 18 that "no one at the White House ordered anyone to slow down internet or slow down speed."

Zelensky spoke with Rubio again on Oct. 20, as Starlink disruptions persisted. Zelensky told reporters on Oct. 22 that he was waiting for a response from Rubio as to whether Starlink communications could be restored to speeds of up to 400 kph.

Rubio promised to get back with him within 48 hours, Zelensky said, but definitive answers may take longer.

"Maybe something will become clear by morning," the official who spoke to the Kyiv Independent said.

"For now, the main interesting aspect of this is that there are absolutely no explanations for what's happening. Even though this is a top-priority system."

President Trump called Elon Musk and asked him to lift restrictions on a military-grade version of Starlink in Ukraine that the SpaceX chief had throttled, U.S. officials said.

The system was working more normally Thursday, shortly after their conversation, U.S. and Ukrainian officials said. Some Ukrainian officials said the system wasn’t restored to full functionality but was working at higher speeds than under the cap.

Trump told Musk said he was frustrated the system’s speeds remained capped at around 100 miles per hour, officials said. The speed limit rendered some of Ukraine’s offensive drones and interceptors powerless against Russian attacks. Their conversation followed a Wall Street Journal report revealing that Musk ordered the slowdown, though SpaceX and the White House have differing accounts about whether the world’s richest man acted alone or at the administration’s behest.

Trump has told aides and allies this week that he wanted to reverse the slowdown of Starlink, which Ukraine’s forces use to defend themselves along the frontline, the officials said.

“Removal of the throttle limit will do much to enable Ukraine’s strike capabilities at operational depths and its current effort to scale up deployment of jet powered interceptors,” said Michael Kofman, an expert on the war at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Kofman added that he had heard from Ukrainian military units that early tests suggest the system is now working more regularly.

The White House referred the Journal to Trump’s recent denials that he had asked Musk to throttle Starlink’s speeds or knew who issued the order. Trump and Musk spoke about Ukraine and Starlink on the day the slowdown became public, the Journal previously reported.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is sending election monitors to GOP stronghold Utah, the state’s Republican lieutenant governor announced on Thursday.

Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, Utah’s top election official, said she was notified of the move but hasn’t received information on where the monitors will be located or exactly how many the Trump administration is deploying to the state.

Henderson has clashed with the Trump administration before, defying demands to turn over the state’s unredacted voter rolls. The administration claimed it needed those records, which include sensitive personal information like Social Security numbers, to identify alleged noncitizens registered to vote. In response, DOJ sued Utah and launched an investigation into Henderson.

The DOJ earlier this year announced plans to enlist 1,000 election monitors to observe midterm elections around the country, which it touted as the largest number in history. .

While election monitors have historically been deployed to document potential civil rights violations, the DOJ’s expansion was met with skepticism from voting rights advocates given the Trump administration’s extraordinary attempts to exert more federal control over the election process.

Utah is one of just a handful of states that offer universal mail voting, making it a frequent target of President Donald Trump and his administration despite it being a Republican stronghold. Ballots went out to all registered voters in the state last week, and the in-person early voting period began this Tuesday.

While the federal election monitors won’t be wearing badges or insignia to signal their presence to voters, Henderson said they will identify themselves to poll workers and are required to follow state laws.

The lieutenant governor also explicitly laid out ground rules for the monitors, saying they “won’t speak to or approach voters” and that they will “not be armed or carrying concealed weapons.”

“They’re not allowed to interfere in any way,” Henderson concluded.

The Trump administration deported 980,000 migrants from the United States in the first 18 months of President Donald Trump’s second term, according to an analysis released Thursday.

Trump returned to office on Jan. 20, 2025, promising mass deportations of 1 million migrants a year. But his administration halted the release of detailed deportation statistics, making it challenging to gauge enforcement. Some immigration hard-liners have criticized Trump’s approach, saying he hasn’t gone far enough to remove undocumented immigrants from the country.

The new report, authored by Marc Rosenblum, a former head of the DHS Office of Homeland Security Statistics who left in July, relies on other records obtained through open-records requests and analyzed by outside groups.

The deportation tally counts both DHS “removals” — which have steeper legal consequences — and less punitive “returns.”

For removals, the Trump administration’s yearly average of 380,000 is lower than the 392,000 average during the first term of President Barack Obama, the report found. Obama removed slightly fewer than 380,000 migrants a year during his second term.

The 432,000 removals in fiscal year 2013 under Obama remain the highest on record, the report said.

Calley Means, senior adviser to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., resigned on Thursday over frustrations that the Make America Healthy Again agenda had stalled inside the White House.

Means was one of the most fervent MAHA allies inside the Trump administration and his departure, less than two weeks before the midterms, comes as many of the movement’s adherents say they are disillusioned with the White House.

While the administration has helped MAHA achieve some notable victories over the past two years, those wins have largely been overshadowed by actions it’s taken supporting the pesticide industry and by unfulfilled promises on food policy – both of which have been enormous let-downs for the movement.

In a statement, Means said he was proud of the work he had done in the administration. He commended Kennedy and Trump for battling against “a corrupt DC bureaucracy.”

“I leave with tremendous respect for President Trump and RFK — two historic figures who are committed to confronting a corrupt DC bureaucracy that is doing everything possible to protect the status quo,” Means said. “The past two years have seen historic policy and cultural change to confront the chronic disease crisis and healthcare incentives that profit from us being sick. This movement is in the first inning and just getting started.”

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.

Means’ departure comes amid his growing frustration with what he saw as a lack of progress on MAHA priorities, according to two administration officials, both granted anonymity to describe his thinking. The breaking point came this week. Means had been scheduled to meet with Kennedy and White House officials to discuss defining ultraprocessed foods, a MAHA priority. That meeting, first reported on by POLITICO, was postponed.

MAHA has prioritized establishing a definition for ultraprocessed foods because they hope it will set the stage for eventual regulation of sweeteners and additives in the American diet.

“That was the straw that broke the camel’s back,” said one of the two administration officials. “Calley’s been pushing very, very hard for this, but it’s been a very opaque process and has been just continuously stonewalled.”

Means, a wellness entrepreneur, worked on Kennedy’s 2024 presidential campaign and the secretary credits him with helping pave the way for Kennedy’s eventual endorsement of Trump. The unlikely alliance brought thousands of MAHA voters into President Donald Trump’s coalition and secured Kennedy a spot in the Cabinet.

Means, who initially served as a White House adviser and later became a senior HHS adviser, was heavily involved in early Trump administration wins on food policy, including revamping the dietary guidelines, getting a smattering of big candy and food companies to voluntarily remove artificial dyes from their products and restricting unhealthy drinks from food stamp coverage in 17 states. He also worked on an executive order, signed by Trump in April, that directed federal agencies to boost research efforts into psychedelic medicine and on efforts to increase nutrition courses taught in medical schools.

But many MAHA adherents felt the movement lost momentum in February when Trump signed an executive order to increase production of the herbicide glyphosate. MAHA activists have long argued that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is poisoning the food supply and driving increases in chronic diseases.

Bayer, the producer of Roundup, had warned the Trump administration it could halt U.S. production of the widely used weedkiller because of mounting lawsuits claiming the product caused cancer. Bayer had also raised concerns over regulatory uncertainty brought on by MAHA demands. The Trump administration argued that glyphosate was needed to secure the food supply chain, invoking national security risks.

The administration also supported Bayer in a Supreme Court case to protect the company from further lawsuits — a move that ignited MAHA protests on the court steps. The company won the case in June.

MAHA advocates such as Vani Hari and Kelly Ryerson, outspoken allies of Kennedy and Means, argued that the administration’s actions favored corporate interests over MAHA voters, calling it a gut punch that the movement has yet to recover from.

Means, at the time, said he and Kennedy were extremely disappointed with the policy, but defended the “complicated” balance of supporting farmers’ status quo while also pursuing alternative farming methods.

Over the last several months, that disappointment increased. Means felt that special interests were holding sway within the White House and thwarting the MAHA agenda, according to the first administration official, who cited “a fallout of support for MAHA initiatives at the White House.”

“There are a lot of presidential promises within the MAHA movement that have been pretty blatantly subverted by special interests, and that’s completely driving his decision to step to step aside and resign,” the official said.

The second administration official pointed to Means’ “frustration” over recent attempts to roll out a school lunch rule to limit unhealthy ingredients in cafeterias.

“It basically got endlessly delayed because of industry concerns,” the official said.

Means is the latest Kennedy ally to depart the administration.

Former FDA Commissioner Marty Makary resigned in May following multiple high-level staff departures under his tenure and disagreements with the West Wing over flavored vapes. Vinay Prasad, the chief FDA regulator for vaccines, left in April following a messy dispute with right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer.

Kennedy’s attempts to replace the departed leadership with other MAHA advocates have demonstrated the limits of MAHA’s political power. Means’ sister, Casey Means, well-known in MAHA circles for a book she wrote with Calley on chronic disease, was nominated for surgeon general but failed to secure enough votes from Republicans to be confirmed.

Instead, MAHA advocates have seen the White House stray from picks who represent their interests, in recent months nominating candidates with more traditional backgrounds like CDC Director Erica Schwartz and surgeon general nominee Nicole Saphier. And the president’s recent pick for FDA commissioner, Heidi Overton, kicked off a wave of backlash from MAHA over the White House adviser’s work on the president’s executive order on glyphosate.

The Trump administration apparently still hasn’t learned its lesson about double-checking sources.

A federal labor agency flagged so many problems in a recent arbitration filing that it suggested the Department of Health and Human Services used artificial intelligence to draft its brief.

In a section where HHS was arguing that an arbitrator got key facts wrong, one of the government’s “supporting legal authorities has a fictitious citation,” a Federal Labor Relations Authority decision says.

“The Agency cites ‘U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 913th Air Wing, 57 FLRA 469, 472 (2001),’ which does not exist,” the decision says in a footnote.

It was one of 10 “entirely fictitious” citations the agency says it found. And overall, 22 of the HHS filing’s 29 footnotes — and 35 of the 42 total legal or record citations — “are fictitious, erroneous, or irrelevant.”

This is not the first time HHS has had trouble with citations in the second Trump administration. Last year, The Washington Sun found the department inaccurately cited more than 500 scientific sources to back up its “Make American Healthy Again” commission report — in some cases even making up studies.

In this latest incident, multiple times the decision points out where HHS attorneys cited a case that refers to an irrelevant part of the law. There are also incorrect page numbers, case numbers and other details.

“Based on the nature and scope of these errors, it appears that the Agency may have used a generative artificial-intelligence (AI) tool in drafting its brief,” the decision says.

HHS was asking the FLRA to reverse a decision from a third-party arbitrator who sided with a labor union in a challenge to a presidential memorandum sending federal workers back to in-person work.

HHS not only didn’t get what they wanted, but it also got a lecture from FLRA about using AI.

“While nothing prohibits parties from using AI tools when preparing filings for submission to the Authority, we caution those who do so to be aware that AI continues to present significant risks of error,” the FLRA wrote.

“Therefore, parties should take steps to verify the accuracy of any AI-generated material and ensure that their filings satisfy all regulatory requirements.”

The FLRA used its own footnote there, pointing to a 2024 guidance on the use of AI-based tools in court “on how to follow filing rules when drafting documents using AI, including reviewing and correcting AI-generated text.”

The HHS Office of the General Counsel did not respond to a request for comment about whether it used AI to write its filing.

And the issue has popped up elsewhere as AI use has become more widespread. In July, a federal judge cautioned an attorney with the Justice Department about AI use that led to inaccurate citations in an immigration case.

President Donald Trump has embraced artificial intelligence, and multiple agencies across the federal government have confirmed they are using the technology.

Federal agents have been spotted outside polling locations in two Florida counties this week during early voting, a presence that local election officials say is intimidating and illegal.

Mark Earley, the supervisor of elections in Leon County, said Monday that two Customs and Border Protection vehicles were parked outside the county’s busiest early voting site in Tallahassee for about 10 minutes.

“I have lodged a formal complaint with the FBI, and to their credit, they are taking this seriously,” Earley said in a statement. “Voters should never experience intimidation from anyone when they are voting, and that includes being intimidated by law enforcement or any other governmental officials.”

In Monroe County, masked federal agents were seen conducting an arrest at an intersection near a polling place. Florida’s Local 10 news reported that the location was clearly near an early voting site in Key Largo, with signs that read “Go Vote” and “Vote Here” around the area.

The county’s supervisor of elections, Sherri Hodies, says it violates the law.

“I’m not happy about it. Frankly, I was stunned about it,” Hodie told Local 10 News. “It’s hard to take these phone calls from voters who are frightened. Their voices are shaking.”

Hodie added that she reached out to Customs and Border Protection after the arrest and informed them of all the early voting sites in the county, urging them to conduct business a distance away from those places.

Federal law prohibits federal agents from being present at polling places. But the lead-up to this year’s midterm elections has been rife with concerns from lawmakers and election officials about whether the Trump administration will follow that law or find ways around it.

At Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin’s confirmation hearing in March, Mullin refused to rule out that agents would stay away from the sites entirely.

“The only reason why my officers would be there is if there was a specific threat for them to be there, not for intimidation,” he said.

President Trump isn’t done trying to rename things.

The president told a rally audience in South Carolina Wednesday evening that he tried to rename the Atlantic Ocean to “Trump Ocean,” but ultimately decided against it.

“I only like two oceans, the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, I’m not going to put either Trump or America on any other ocean but these two. So, we seriously looked at the Atlantic Ocean and I called Google Maps who were really great with the lake and really great with …” Trump said, trailing off but referring to the Gulf of Mexico.

Trump said he called Google CEO Sundar Pichai and asked him, “I’m thinking of the Atlantic Ocean, can you handle it? ‘No no no, this time I’m not doing it,’ he said.”

The audience and Trump laughed.

“He said, he said, he said, ‘Oceans are different, sir. You know, they cover, they cover a lot of, they cover really a lot of countries. Please, don’t ask us to do that.’ So I’ll probably pass. Should I pass it? I think let’s keep it the Atlantic Ocean,” Trump said.

Trump’s ego knows no bounds if he was seriously considering having Google change the name of the Atlantic Ocean. He has signed executive orders changing the names of the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario to the Gulf of America and Lake America, respectively. He’s proposed renaming the Strait of Hormuz to “Trump Strait,” and earlier this week again mused about renaming New Mexico to “New America.” Meanwhile, the economy is suffering as a result of his failed policies and ill-advised war with Iran, and the Republican Party is facing heavy losses in November’s midterm elections.

The Treasury Department on Thursday proposed new regulations to bar large institutional investors from buying up single-family homes, the latest step in the process to implement the most controversial section of the sweeping bipartisan housing law passed this summer.

Under the law, the ban — which prohibits investors with more than 350 houses from purchasing additional single-family homes – goes into effect Jan. 7, a short runway Treasury acknowledged in the 96-page proposal.

“Given this short implementation period and the need for market participants to make decisions regarding homebuilding, acquisitions, ownership structures, investment arrangements, and compliance systems, Treasury currently intends to take a phased rulemaking approach,” the agency said.

The institutional investor restrictions were part of a populist affordability pitch by President Donald Trump, who declared, “People live in homes, not corporations.”

Critics have argued, though, that the policy could create a chilling effect for builders, and in turn, be a drag on supply.

Market participants were still reviewing the proposal Thursday morning.

“This is a very complicated provision and a very complicated rule as a result of that,” said David Dworkin, president and chief executive officer of the National Housing Conference. “The bottom line is going to be whether the market continues to build desperately needed rental housing or not. And if we see that builders continue to construct rental housing, regardless of whether it is stacked on top of each other or side by side, I think that Treasury successfully navigated the issue.”

“If on the other hand the market stops investing in rental housing, then what we’ve done is simply exacerbated the affordable housing crisis,” Dworkin added.

The bipartisan housing law aimed to alleviate a supply crunch that has contributed to voters’ frustrations over affordability. In addition to the institutional investor restriction, the law includes new rules making it easier to develop factory-built housing and encouraging localities to remove barriers to construction.

A federal judge on Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to sit for a deposition in his defamation lawsuit against the BBC by Dec. 11.

The order from U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett came as BBC’s lawyers complained that Trump had delayed his appearance. Attorney Charles Tobin said that with two months left in the discovery period, “we still haven’t been able to depose the plaintiff.”

He noted there was an agreed-upon date of Oct. 16, but that the Republican president canceled it for a “matter of national importance.” Tobin he said Trump was in fact campaigning in Georgia.

“He was participating in party politics and prioritized that over sitting for the deposition,” Tobin said.

Lett said Trump must sit for a deposition by Dec. 11, or face sanctions up to dismissal of his lawsuit -– unless the discovery period was extended past Dec. 18.

The Department of Justice indicted L. Louise Lucas, a long-serving Virginia state Democratic lawmaker who publicly clashed with the White House amid its redistricting push, on drug trafficking and money laundering charges that were unsealed Thursday.

Lucas, a powerful state senator who chairs the Virginia appropriations committee, helped engineer state Democrats’ ill-fated push to gerrymander the House map ahead of the November midterms. While voters approved of the redrawn districts in a referendum in April, the state Supreme Court overturned the map in May, ruling that Democrats violated procedure.

She was indicted, alongside family members and other associates, related to a cannabis business she helped start.

The FBI raided Lucas’s office in May, which she cast as retribution for her efforts in Virginia’s redistricting process. Her office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Trump administration’s attempt to lure millions of tourists to the US is falling flat as visitor numbers drop following this summer’s football World Cup.

The number of overseas visitors to the US — which counts all non-citizens arriving from foreign countries excluding Mexico and Canada — was down 5.7 per cent year on year in the nine months to the end of September, according to figures released this week by the National Travel and Tourism Office. 

It follows a 2.5 per cent decline in 2025, the first annual drop since the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. Some of the steepest declines came from western Europeans, the country’s largest overseas tourist source market, where visitor numbers have slipped 8.7 per cent so far in 2026.

The World Travel & Tourism Council estimates that the US last year lost about $8.4bn in international visitor spending compared with 2024.

“We’re leaving an immense amount of business on the table,” said Adam Sacks, president of consultancy Tourism Economics. “If anything, the market has further deteriorated since the World Cup.”

President Donald Trump said last year that a drop-off in international visitors was “not a big deal” but in recent months he has moved to reassure the US tourism industry. Last month, he met travel company executives — including from Hilton, Marriott and American Airlines — to discuss efforts to meet an ambitious goal of reaching 100mn international visitors by 2030.

The target would be well above the record 79.7mn tourists who visited in 2018 and more than 45 per cent higher than the 68.3mn visitors who came in 2025.

Spearheading Trump’s travel push is Australian-born rightwing influencer Nick Adams, who was appointed in March to a new position as diplomatic envoy for American tourism.

Adams — who describes himself online as an “alpha male” — acknowledged at a conference in October that there had been “a dip” in international tourism in 2025 and said calls for boycotting travel to the US were “hurting small businesspeople”.

He said he would look to refute notions that the US is “inhospitable” by bringing in hospitality experts to train border staff and replicate the welcome of the “best of the best hotels” when travellers arrive in the US.

Adams said travellers who returned home following the World Cup would boost demand by exposing the “absolute and total nonsense” of perceptions “that you may be detained, that your phone might be confiscated, and that your social media might be pored over” when visiting the US.

However, travellers have reported increased scrutiny at the border during Trump’s second term. Searches of electronic devices were up 33 per cent in the nine months to the end of June compared with a year earlier, according to US Customs and Border Protection.

Geoff Freeman, president of the US Travel Association, blamed the media for scaring prospective tourists by “looking to find a negative story” and cherry-picking one-off incidents, such as Somali referee Omar Artan, who was denied entry to the US for the World Cup. “One referee out of several million people actually shows how welcoming the country is,” said Freeman.

But other travel executives said that Trump’s dramatic expansion of immigration enforcement and wide-ranging restrictions on international visas were responsible for the cooling demand.

Sacks at Tourism Economics said he did not anticipate any increase in international appetite for visiting the US without a change in “the combative rhetoric, the antagonistic approach to trade and the disregard for historical alliances”.

Roberto Alvo, head of Latam Airlines, the largest South American carrier, said passengers had been reluctant to travel to the US because of Washington’s immigration policies, including a flurry of last-minute entry permit cancellations for people from countries such as Chile.

“People say they are not planning a trip to Orlando with their family when all of a sudden, three days before, you find out that one person from the family is revoked. Then what do you do with your plans?” he said.  

Other tourists are staying away for financial reasons. Adrian Neuhauser, head of South American carrier Abra, said exchange rates were pushing travellers towards Europe instead of the more costly US. The dollar has strengthened 3.4 per cent against a basket of six peer currencies this year.

Strong domestic travel has helped offset the shortfall of international travellers. Domestic tourism makes up 87 per cent of travel spending in the US, according to the US Travel Association, and grew at an annual rate of 4.1 per cent in the year to August.

But international holidaymakers “tend to pay higher rates and tend to stay longer, so you have more steady business and [ . . . ] pricing power,” said Deutsche Bank analyst Chris Woronka.

One tourism board official, who asked to remain anonymous, said that for businesses reliant on overseas visitors, the two years before the US presidential election in 2028 were “just about surviving”.

The Trump administration has approved wind projects in Maine and South Dakota in an attempt to ease resistance among Senate Democrats to advancing a bipartisan permitting reform bill that could prove essential to President Donald Trump’s ambitions for energy and artificial intelligence.

A White House official confirmed to the Washington Examiner on Thursday morning that the Department of War had cleared its “first tranche of wind projects” that were still under review. The administration’s efforts to stall wind projects had led key Democratic negotiators to withhold support for the infrastructure bill.

“The Trump administration is removing all barriers clearing the way for the Senate’s permitting reform bill to pass,” the official said.

The projects in Maine and South Dakota were advanced earlier Thursday after officials determined that they pose no national security concerns.

“More are expected in the coming days/weeks after all the proper reviews have been completed,” the White House official continued, adding that the Pentagon will be evaluating each wind project on a “case-by-case basis.”

The Pentagon has come under fire over the last few months for stalling military reviews of proposed onshore wind farms since April. These reviews have long been considered routine and are conducted to determine that new turbines do not interfere with military operations, local radar, or flight paths.

In August, a federal judge ruled in favor of a group of renewable energy groups that claimed the department was unlawfully delaying dozens of wind projects, costing states $47 billion by freezing its review of onshore wind projects.

While still court-ordered, advancing the Maine and South Dakota projects could be viewed as a sign of good faith for Democrats worried about whether the administration will fairly implement permitting reform not just for fossil fuel projects favored by the president but also for renewable energy projects.

Earlier in the week, key negotiator Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-NY) indicated that the administration could be threatening the legislative deal struck last month, as the Department of Justice sought to remand permits of several offshore wind farms.

“This is how you blow up a permitting deal,” he told Politico.

Despite concerns from Democrats, the Trump administration has continued to support the bipartisan permitting deal publicly, with a White House official saying there is “NOTHING left to do but vote.”

“The Administration has done EVERTHING it has promised to do,” the official added. “If this deal does not pass, it is ENTIRELY on the Democrats own internal fights and finger-pointing.”

Politico issued a correction late Wednesday to a story it published about White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and the backstory on what led to ousted press secretary Katie Zacharia’s firing last week.

The outlet originally reported that Wiles helped set up interviews for Zacharia on Fox News, a widely panned series of media hits that ultimately ended with the press secretary’s firing last week.

“An earlier version of this report, including its headline, mischaracterized the role White House chief of staff Susie Wiles played in then-press secretary Katie Zacharia’s interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News,” the outlet wrote in its correct. “POLITICO’s follow-up reporting indicates she did not play a direct role in setting up the interview.”

The correction came after the White House sent a letter to the outlet demanding it correct the record on Wiles’s role in Zacharia’s hits on Fox News, Axios reported, with the West Wing saying the outlet could face unspecified consequences over the inaccurate report.

This week’s episode between the White House and Politico comes amid a broader period of tensions between President Trump’s administration and the press corps.

The outlet was one of three Trump has sought to ban from working from the White House, and the West Wing has banned the political news outlet from Air Force One on at least one occasion since.

The story in Politico is just the latest in a string of reports that have popped up suggesting Trump was losing faith in Wiles.

Trump and his aides have seemingly grown more frustrated with the media in recent days, with the president snapping at reporters as he answers questions and reportedly floating the idea of removing the press corps out of the White House to another location.

The US Commerce Department said on Thursday it plans to award $389 million in research and development funding to four companies working on ‌power semiconductor devices and critical materials, with the government receiving minority equity stakes.

The department in recent months has awarded 19 R&D grants to semiconductor firms from a $10 billion fund approved by Congress in 2022. Commerce ⁠Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a statement the awards will "accelerate American semiconductor innovation to enhance our domestic energy and power resources."

The department said it had signed letters of intent to provide four new awards:

• Helion will receive up to $175 million to develop high-voltage power semiconductors and advanced energy power modules in fusion power generation. The semiconductors will ‌power ⁠and use energy from magnets driving Helion fusion generators.

• Commonwealth Fusion Systems will receive up to $85 million to develop semiconductors for radio-frequency plasma heating, power electronics, fusion diagnostics, and radiation-hardened electronics.

• ⁠Vertical Semiconductor will receive up to $73 million to advance its vertical gallium nitride power semiconductors for use in AI data center ⁠racks.

• Sibelco will receive up to $56 million to develop next-generation purification for ultra-high-purity quartz used in the semiconductor ⁠supply chain.

The department said as a condition of funding, the US government will receive minority, non-controlling and non-voting equity stakes.

Minnesota law enforcement officials say the federal government is again refusing to share evidence from the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti during Operation Metro Surge.

The abrupt change comes after previous statements from state officials that evidence sharing had began and working relationships with federal officials were returning to normal.

It creates new roadblocks in the state’s attempt to complete a full investigation into the killings without key pieces of evidence, and raises questions about potential criminal charges against the federal agents involved.

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said in a statement that the continued withholding of evidence shows the federal government is “intent on obstructing our investigations for however long they can.”

In July, Moriarty announced that state investigators were provided evidence from the federal government, including hard drives, body camera footage and statements from immigration enforcement agents about the killings.

“The wonderful thing is now we have all the evidence,” she said at the time. “We don’t have to speculate about what we don’t have, so that certainly makes our analysis easier.”

But in court filings last week, attorneys for the state of Minnesota said the Justice Department still has not provided crucial pieces of evidence in both shootings, including the cell phone of ICE agent Jonathan Ross, who shot Good. The attorneys argued that the evidence is critical to complete a thorough investigation.

Drew Evans, superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, said in a declaration that the Justice Department has also not provided the firearms used to shoot Pretti and a recording of a statement by one of the officers who shot him.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment about the sudden change. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to the Minnesota Star Tribune’s questions about what prompted the pause.

Tension over evidence sharing has clouded the investigations into the killings of Good and Pretti since they occurred. Initially, the BCA was not allowed to take part in a joint investigation into the use of force by federal agents, breaking with working norms between state and federal law enforcement.

That lack of cooperation led state officials to claim that they were in “uncharted territory” when it came to determining whether or not crimes had been committed during Operation Metro Surge.

Moriarty announced over the summer that state investigators had received the SUV that Good was driving at the time she was shot, among other crucial items, after months of efforts. Evans added that they were provided the gun used to shoot Good, body-worn camera footage, hard drives with information about the shooting of Pretti, and more.

The prior agreement between the state and U.S. Attorney’s Office came with an acknowledgement from federal prosecutors that “the best course for these investigations will be impartial and open sharing of information and evidence.”

Shortly after that announcement, however, the sharing of evidence allegedly stopped with no explanation.

The latest details on the shift came in a court filing in a federal lawsuit between the State of Minnesota and the Department of Justice over the lack of cooperation.

Moriarty, in court filings, said she repeatedly contacted Minnesota U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen about the stoppage. Rosen responded that he was “optimistic” the exchange of information would restart “soon.”

On Sept. 10, Moriarty said she was informed by Rosen that evidence sharing and cooperation would be paused “indefinitely,” due to “challenges with D.C.”

“All of this signals that the U.S. Attorney’s Office will not be able to share any more evidence” with the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office or the BCA unless “there is a change in policy at the highest levels of DOJ,” Moriarty wrote.

Evans listed several examples of recent cooperation between the parties in law enforcement matters, including the politically-motivated shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers and their families last year. He also said it has been the norm in federal officer-involved shootings, citing a 2019 shooting of a suspect by a deputy U.S. Marshal at a gas station in St. Paul.

Moriarty noted that collaboration between state and federal officials otherwise continues as normal, including in homicide cases, mass shootings and drug cases.

U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan is overseeing the federal lawsuit after the state of Minnesota, through Attorney General Keith Ellison and Moriarty, sought to force the federal government to turn over all evidence related to the killings.

The Justice Department has asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed, arguing that the release of the evidence is at the discretion of various federal agencies and that Minnesota officials failed to comply with those regulations when requesting the evidence.

Moriarty said the state is asking for Sullivan to “bring an end to this case and secure the evidence to which we are entitled.”

The shootings sparked global outrage and protests amid Operation Metro Surge, the 10-week immigration crackdown that sent about 4,000 federal agents to Minnesota.

Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was shot and killed by Ross on Jan. 7 on Portland Avenue as she appeared to drive her SUV away from federal agents who had been carrying out immigration enforcement down the street.

Ross, who six months earlier had been dragged down the street by his arm by a man fleeing a traffic stop in Bloomington, fired while standing near the front of Good’s SUV.

Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, was fatally shot about two weeks later on Nicollet Avenue in south Minneapolis after a confrontation with federal agents in the area. Pretti was filming the agents and seen with a gun holstered. He had a permit to carry.

After a confrontation, a federal agent sprayed Pretti in the face with a chemical irritant and several federal agents swarmed the area, wrestling Pretti to the ground. An agent appeared to take Pretti’s gun and run away just before 10 shots rang out, killing him.

The Justice Department has previously said it is investigating the killing of Pretti.

Top Trump administration officials are starting to point fingers squarely at SpaceX founder Elon Musk for the decision to slow down his company’s Starlink satellite internet services and its military counterpart Starshield for Ukraine, which has been muddled in uncertainty over the culprit.

Looking to deflect the controversial move — which was swiftly admonished by powerful Congressional Republicans and Democrats — Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday said that Ukraine’s access to Starlink was up to Musk and not the White House.

“The bottom line is that that is governed by a private commercial contract as to how their stuff can be used and what speeds they’ll allow it to be used at,” Rubio told reporters while traveling to India.

And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking to reporters a day prior on Tuesday, suggested Starlink’s slowdown was a commercial matter and not a result of any orders from the White House.

“There are terms of service that ultimately need to be complied to, and that’s where Starlink has the option to make those decisions,” Hegseth said.

Taken together, the comments are a change of tune to President Trump’s original assertions last week that neither he nor Musk were responsible for the disruption. Rubio also on Saturday had insisted that no one ordered the slowdown.

The about-face comes after The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that Musk had ordered the slowdown of the satellite services, a vital tool Ukraine uses to defend itself from Russian missile and drone attacks.

Trump’s role is unclear. The Journal reported that at least one person claimed Musk and Trump spoke prior to the slowdown. Reuters reported last week that the order to throttle Starlink came from inside the White House, in a directive to the Pentagon. Sources speaking to Reuters did not specify who at the White House made the decision or who was responsible for implementing the order.

“I don’t know who did it but I was not involved,” Trump told reporters Wednesday when asked.

Trump and Musk have experienced periods of fall-out in their relationship but appear on the upswing today. The nadir of their relationship occurred during a major public spat in June 2025, where Musk alleged that files on the disgraced financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were kept secret to protect Trump.

But the relationship has rebounded since then. Trump awarded Musk the National Medal of Science earlier this month. And Musk has provided more than $276 million for Republicans in the midterm elections, the New York Times reported.

Outgoing Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R) on Wednesday said he doubted Trump had no hand in the slowdown, as he doesn’t believe that Musk “would do this without at least the acquiescence of the White House.”

“I think it’s frankly shameful,” Cornyn said on CNBC’s Squawk Box. “I think we should be supporting the victim, not the aggressor.”

Starlink’s slowdown in Ukraine came after Ukrainian President Voldoymyr Zelensky lashed out at Trump for waiving sanctions on Russia and making a deal to purchase diesel from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Zelensky called Trump “weak” for making the deal.

Part of Trump’s response to Zelensky was to blame him as the obstacle to peace with Putin.

Republicans holding back blame on Trump for Starlink’s throttling are demanding an investigation and accountability. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and outgoing congressman Don Bacon (R-Neb.) have threatened to block Trump’s agenda during the lame-duck session if answers are not provided.

“This is a very, very serious matter. It cannot be glossed over,” Fitzpatrick told CNN on Tuesday, following the Journal report.

Fitzpatrick said if Musk ordered Starshield’s slowdown, “that is likely a violation of the law.”

“He has decision-making authority over Starlink, the civilian commercial product, but not Starshield, which is a military grade national security tool. No individual civilian should have any decision-making authority over how that’s deployed,” he said.

Adding to the confusion, Rubio, who also serves as national security advisor, has said Ukraine does not have access to Starshield.

“Starshield is a defense product… the United States military uses,” Rubio told reporters last week.

“It’s not at this moment available to Ukraine, and that’s under conversation. It’s under discussion right now of how they would want to use it.”

Zelensky on Tuesday said he discussed with Rubio “the situation with Starlink/Starshield, which needs to be restored,” and called the conversation “constructive,” in a post on the social platform X.

Part of that conversation is whether the U.S. could give Ukraine the ability to hit targets deep inside Russia, in particular missile launchers, in exchange for halting Ukrainian strikes against Russian oil refineries.

Trump has demanded Ukraine halt strikes against Russian energy infrastructure, claiming that they are related to high diesel prices in the U.S. that largely stem from the U.S. war against Iran.

Russia has refused to halt strikes against Ukrainian energy sites, in particular civilian electricity and heating infrastructure. Zelensky’s allies in Congress have backed a proposal for the U.S. to give Ukraine the ability to hit Russian missile launchers in exchange for halting Ukrainian strikes against Russian energy facilities.

“President Trump can lower prices at the pump today by simply agreeing to this deal!” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) wrote in a post on X Sunday. Wicker’s pushback came after Trump announced he would buy Russian diesel to lower prices in the U.S.

Ukraine’s ability to hit Russian launchers would rely on accessing Starlink inside Russia, where it’s currently blocked. A bipartisan group of lawmakers — seven Republicans and 16 Democrats — wrote to Trump on Wednesday urging him to call Musk and give Ukrainians that access.

“With one phone call, you could both save lives and give Vladimir Putin greater incentives to negotiate,” the lawmakers wrote.

“If Ukraine cannot reliably intercept Russian ‘arrows,’ it must be able to shoot the ‘archer.’ The Starlink system run by Mr. Musk’s company SpaceX could help with that.”

The civil rights arm of the U.S. Department of Education has dramatically scaled back investigations involving schools and colleges since the second Trump administration began, even as complaints continue to pour in, a ProPublica analysis of newly obtained records found.

The analysis shows how severely the department’s Office for Civil Rights has retracted from its mission, launching an average of about 100 new investigations a month — 1,839 total from Inauguration Day in 2025 through July 2026. The OCR launched an average of 310 new investigations each month in 2024 during the Biden administration, according to data previously obtained by ProPublica.

Under President Donald Trump, the OCR abandoned the public-facing list of schools it was investigating and the reasons for those investigations, including claims of discrimination based on race, sex and disability. ProPublica sued the department to obtain internal case data. The government subsequently provided records of the OCR’s actions in the first 18 months of Trump’s return to power, and we are publishing the data so the public can search the cases.

The decline in investigations is especially dramatic for cases involving sex discrimination. More than 200 new complaints were filed with the office related to schools’ handling of sexual violence — rape, assault and abuse. But the Trump administration launched investigations in only 29 of them, finding fault with a school district only once, according to the newly obtained data. It’s typical for there to be at least 60 sexual violence investigations opened each year.

The department addressed fewer of these cases despite continued concerns about the persistence of the problem — as demonstrated by the intense public scrutiny over how Cornell University addressed a student’s report of a 2024 gang rape.

Beyond that, the OCR launched only two investigations into discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Delays resulting from the U.S. Postal Service’s cost-cutting measures have endangered the validity of ballots cast in rural areas, a ProPublica analysis found.

The rates of ballots rejected for arriving late this year doubled or tripled in areas affected by the cuts compared to the 2022 primary. That wasn’t the case elsewhere.

Postal Service leaders say special procedures in place for the Nov. 3 election should prevent similar delays, but experts warn that mistakes are likely.

The Pentagon has spent months quietly building an elite new tech agency to help covertly disrupt and sabotage foreign technology programs considered threats to American military superiority.

Neither Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth nor any other senior Pentagon official has publicly mentioned the agency since it was established this April — a conspicuous omission for a department that has reveled in announcing other major changes aimed at modernizing the military or adopting hard-nosed new policies against foreign adversaries.

Information on the Technology Support Office, or TSO as it is called internally, is nearly impossible to find on Pentagon websites, and the agency is mentioned by name only in several previously unreported Defense Department historical records and memoranda.

While the specifics of its work are highly classified, POLITICO spoke with 12 current and former U.S. national security officials with varying degrees of knowledge about TSO to understand how the agency came to be, the broad contours of its mission and why its operations are shrouded in secrecy.

Some of these people helped establish TSO or worked closely with it; others attended briefings or spoke with current Pentagon officials about it; and some were familiar with Defense Department intelligence programs now merged into TSO. All were granted anonymity to share sensitive details about the agency that have not been previously reported.

Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg, a private equity billionaire and former head of the White House’s Intelligence Advisory Board during President Donald Trump’s first term, led the push inside the Pentagon to create the new agency.

Tom Rakusan, a senior adviser to Feinberg at the Pentagon, has also been closely involved in setting up TSO. Rakusan is a longtime veteran of the CIA’s clandestine service, and most recently worked at Feinberg’s private equity firm, where he focused on emerging technology.

Hegseth and Feinberg established TSO quickly and without attracting outside scrutiny because they largely built the agency by reorganizing two classified Pentagon intelligence programs that have conducted similar clandestine tech-sabotage efforts at a smaller scale since 2023.

But by creating an agency dedicated to expanding that work, the Defense Department is signaling its intent to ramp up a range of aggressive covert activities abroad — potentially including cyberattacks, supply chain disruptions and disinformation operations.

Many of the people who spoke to POLITICO argued that the aggressive new initiative is needed to help the Pentagon counter foreign adversaries they say are harnessing artificial intelligence and advanced commercial technologies, such as drones, in creative ways that could erode America’s military advantage.

“It is a refocus from the highest levels of the government on this type of activity, which has been sorely needed,” said one former senior Pentagon intelligence official with direct knowledge of TSO.

Others worry that the Trump administration has deliberately avoided public mention of TSO to avoid oversight over programs that could harm civilians or inflame tensions with adversary countries the U.S. is not at war with, such as China.

To make an undertaking like TSO successful, said another former senior Pentagon official, “you have to pull off movie-level spy craft.”

“But the questions are: What are the approval structures, what is the oversight, who is read in to give the American people confidence that what you’re doing is consistent with our values and you’re not creating something that five years from now will be seen as incredibly problematic?” the official added.

In response to a series of questions about TSO and the details of this story, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Jacob Bliss said, “This query appears to be built on information that is simply not true. Whoever is feeding you these claims are either badly misinformed or deliberately leading you astray to peddle their fantasies.”

While TSO lacks the legal authority to conduct clandestine operations directly, it works closely with senior U.S. military and intelligence officers to develop cutting-edge tools and strategies to disrupt adversaries’ access to critical defense technologies — or subvert them from afar.

TSO is staffed with engineers, special operators and intelligence officers, and its work spans everything from building bespoke hacking tools to planning elaborate deception operations that trick adversaries into installing faulty components — likely designed by TSO — in key foreign weapons platforms.

TSO’s overarching goal is to “buy time or stop adversaries from developing technologies” that would most threaten the U.S. military in a major conflict, said a former U.S. intelligence official who worked closely with the agency.

Pentagon staff had been exploring whether to create a new agency like TSO for more than a year.

According to three former intelligence officials, staff in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, or I&S, which oversees Defense Department intelligence programs, began work in early 2025 on a white paper exploring how to scale up the Pentagon’s two existing classified tech sabotage programs.

The white paper, completed that fall, considered nesting both programs under the Pentagon’s digital warfighting unit, U.S. Cyber Command, but ultimately recommended merging the efforts into a new agency with its own budget and procurement powers.

The move would empower the agency to more quickly integrate cutting-edge tech from the private sector and think more strategically about which foreign defense technologies pose the biggest threats across U.S. military organizations.

Senior Pentagon leadership also saw an opportunity to consolidate some control over Defense Department intelligence programs, a former Pentagon official familiar with the initiative said.

TSO is “definitely part of this move to centralize some control upstairs,” the official explained.

The race to stand up the agency kicked off in earnest this spring.

Feinberg signed a memo establishing TSO and placing it under the “authority, direction, and control” of the Undersecretary of War for Intelligence & Security on April 14, according to a monthly leadership publication from the Defense Department’s public record-keeping office. The Senate confirmed the current head of I&S, Bradley Hansell, in July 2025.

This summer, the Pentagon tapped Grant Hundley, a former Marine Corps special operations officer, to serve as TSO’s director. They also selected William Nelson, a career Army official recently at Army Futures Command, as the new Director of Intelligence for Sensitive Activities and Special Programs, who will work with Hansell to oversee the agency internally from I&S.

It’s unclear how much money has been allocated to carry out TSO’s secretive operations, or if it has issued any new contracts yet.

A second former Pentagon official and a former U.S. national security official said the agency has told some defense contractors it’s interested in offensive hacking capabilities. The former senior Pentagon intelligence official estimated that its budget for classified contracts alone is likely north of $1.5 billion.

They are seeking contractors on “the leading edge of technology,” that official said, and hope to procure “a whole host of tools wherever your imagination can go.”

Bliss did not respond to a request for comment on whether the Pentagon has requested additional money to fund the agency or if it intends to seek long-term authorization from Congress.

Beyond offensive operations, TSO will also focus on coordinating technology use and cutting red tape for defense contractors spread across a thicket of heavily siloed Pentagon intelligence programs. According to one former U.S. intelligence official who has spoken with Pentagon leadership, one such initiative would see TSO build a central “catalog” of approved commercial AI and tech tools contractors could use on classified initiatives.

The agency’s emergence as a power center for military hacking and sabotage has irked some senior officials elsewhere in the Pentagon.

Special Operations Command and U.S. Cyber Command both objected to creating the new agency, fearing it would cut into their budgets, according to the two former intelligence officials and one former senior U.S. national security official. The two former intelligence officials added that friction over TSO is part of the reason why Cyber Command’s chief acquisition officer, Khoi Nguyen, recently left the command.

Nguyen, whose former role had him overseeing the digital warfighting unit’s efforts to procure cutting-edge hacking tools, did not reply to a request for comment.

TSO, said the former intelligence official who worked closely with the agency, is taking on the types of operations Cyber Command “would love to claim as its own.”

Several people who spoke to POLITICO support TSO’s mission but worry that the secrecy surrounding its work could embolden current Pentagon leadership to carry out missions that flout international law or funnel coveted classified contracts to political allies.

Over the last two years, Hegseth has boasted publicly about operations that test the boundaries of domestic and international law, while slow-rolling Congressional attempts to oversee deadly missions that have gone awry.

The Pentagon recently briefed some congressional officials on its plans for TSO, but only a small number of staffers have been read in on the initiative, said one current U.S. national security official, which could make it harder for Congress to identify any potential impropriety in TSO’s operations or contracting.

“Because it’s a classified space, there’s even more opportunities to hide or misdirect,” the official said. In a statement, Bliss, the Pentagon spokesperson, said the Defense Department ”values its longstanding working relationship with Congress” and “will continue working closely and constructively with the relevant committees to provide appropriate information, answer legitimate questions, and ensure Congress can fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibilities.”

Hegseth and Feinberg have announced a flurry of new modernization initiatives — such as a new commission dubbed Project Meridian led by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and Anduril founder Palmer Luckey — that skeptics say expose the Defense Department to a torrent of conflicts of interest.

Democrats have focused their concern on Feinberg because the private equity and venture capital firms he led before joining the Defense Department both have sizable investments in defense tech companies that compete for Pentagon contracts.

Bliss called concern about conflicts of interest “a baseless, completely recycled narrative that certain reporters continue to lazily push despite having zero facts to support it.” DOD, he added, “maintains a rigorous, multi-layered ethics framework that includes financial disclosure reviews, divestitures where appropriate, and screening to prevent conflicts of interest. Every DOW official is in full compliance with all ethical laws and regulations. Any claims otherwise are false.”

Other people who spoke to POLITICO said they felt reassured by the current and former career officials chosen to work most closely with the agency, specifically Nelson and Rakusan.

These are “seasoned career professionals who have withstood political pressures before,” said the former intelligence official who has spoken with Pentagon leadership about the initiative.

When a small group of nonprofit and ed-tech leaders arrived at a meeting with Trump administration official Arielle Roth earlier this year, they were not expecting a warm welcome. But some were stunned at just how combative the meeting ended up being.

Roth, who leads an agency that advises the president on telecommunications issues, had already been on the record sharply criticizing the proliferation of screens in American classrooms.

At this meeting she went one significant step beyond her public comments: Roth compared ed-tech to tobacco and those in the meeting to the tobacco industry, according to two people who were there.

The meeting included individuals who support ed-tech, as well as those who back federally subsidized internet access in schools generally. Roth suggested that, like the tobacco industry, they were pushing products that cause serious harm.

“People were pretty shook up about it,” a meeting attendee said. Some were startled and offended by the comparison to tobacco, which has been linked to millions of deaths. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid the ire of the Trump administration and to share the details of a private meeting.

Roth’s comments — which she made months ago but have not been previously reported — reveal the depth of feeling within parts of the administration about technology in schools. “I don’t remember the specific analogies used in this meeting,” Roth said in an interview last week, when asked about her comments. “We had a frank discussion.”

“Just like any industry, the ed-tech industry and the E-Rate consultancy industry [have] a financial interest in their line of business,” she said. “It’s important to ensure that their interests are aligned with the interests of children.”

Roth’s perspective matters because she has already helped prompt a review of the $3 billion federal school internet fund, known as E-Rate. Education officials and their advocates say that internet access is essential to the functioning of modern schools. Many are fearful of potential cuts to the long-running federal program. Roth contends that these subsidies may have fueled excessive and ineffective ed-tech use.

Roth, a mom of six, says concerns about school screen time are “deeply personal” to her. As the head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, she launched listening sessions about “excessive screen use in schools” and helped craft the E-Rate review.

At one of those sessions, Erin Amini, a Pennsylvania pediatrician and a mom of four, said that school devices issued in kindergarten made it difficult to limit her children’s screen use. “Suddenly the decision that we had carefully made for our children was no longer ours to make,” she said. The gamified nature of certain ed-tech products could activate the same response as an addictive drug, said Amini. More parents are pressuring schools to cut back screen use, and some districts are already doing so.

In comments issued last week about E-Rate, Roth’s agency raised the possibility of allowing parents to opt out of ed-tech. “A key priority of this administration is ensuring that parents have control over their children’s technology use,” Roth said in the interview.

Many submitted comments, though, emphasized the value of federal internet funding.

Supporters of ed-tech have also argued that broad screen-time restrictions are blunt measures that could limit effective uses that are helping students. “It’s really disingenuous” to compare ed-tech to something like tobacco, said Richard Culatta, head of an educators’ group that backs tech in schools. “It’s sort of become this talking point du jour — oh, ban ed-tech because it’s dangerous. And there just isn’t evidence for that.”

The efficacy of ed-tech remains up for debate among researchers. Advocates have struggled to prove that it has led to the learning gains many hoped for, but assertions that it has caused large declines in test scores are also unproven.

Culatta has allies in other parts of the Trump administration. In fact, his group recently hosted a convening at the Education Department building titled “From Screentime to Screen Value.” Education Secretary Linda McMahon has repeatedly touted Alpha School, a tech-powered private school. Her department has issued relatively favorable guidance on ed-tech, and the White House has promoted the value of AI in education.

“The same tools that can distract during recreational use can also expand access to advanced courses, support students with disabilities, and help close learning gaps, when used wisely,” Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education Kirsten Baesler said in a statement in August.

The Trump administration, in other words, appears deeply divided on tech in the classroom. One arm of the federal government is promoting it, while another arm is trying to limit it — with intense feelings on both sides.

The Trump administration told a judge Wednesday evening that construction on the president’s controversial 250-foot triumphal arch could begin in just two weeks, days after the midterm elections.

The Justice Department said in Wednesday’s court filing that the National Capital Planning Commission is set to meet on November 5 and could sign off on final plans for the arch that day — and with final authorization from the Department of the Interior — “construction could commence as early as November 5, 2026.”

The administration last week released final plans for the arch — one of President Donald Trump’s pet construction projects in the nation’s capital. Wednesday night’s court filing comes in one of the lawsuits seeking to stop the arch’s construction.

Notably, the plans released last week excluded key features of a military complex including drones and snipers that Trump has used as justification for the much-criticized project. In the plans, the contours of the arch do not appear to reflect a national security purpose. Instead, they describe the project as a “ceremonial gateway” to the nation’s capital.

Trump announced in September that the arch would store large numbers of drones and function as a post for military snipers, with a large cache of ammunition. While the plans submitted last week don’t include the military components Trump described, the structure still might feature them.

The massive arch would sit directly across from Arlington National Cemetery where nearly 430,000 service members, veterans and their family members are buried. Veterans suing to stop its construction argue the towering structure would break the solemnity of funerals at the cemetery, while preservationists argue it would disrupt the sightline of the row of national landmarks that includes the Lincoln Memorial, Arlington House and the Robert E. Lee Memorial.

An Interior Department spokesperson told CNN over the weekend that the structure will “enhance the visitor experience at Arlington National Cemetery for veterans, the families of the fallen, and all Americans alike.”

The proposed arch is among several projects Trump is pursuing in an effort to remake the nation’s capital to his own personal liking, prompting legal battles from preservationists and others. The idea of the arch being needed for national security purposes mirrors an argument Trump has made for building a White House ballroom where the East Wing once stood.

The State Department has asked some foreign service officials up for promotion who they voted for in the 2016, 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, raising concerns the agency is violating a federal law that bars politicized personnel decisions within the nonpartisan ranks.

Top officials in the State Department made clear that only candidates who voted for President Donald Trump would be eligible for the mid-to-upper level foreign service roles. They also told candidates that their campaign donation history would be examined and any donation to Democrats would be disqualifying.

The Washington Sun spoke to six current and former State Department officials familiar with the line of questioning around candidates’ voting histories. Three of the sources had spoken directly with individuals who had been asked the questions.

Congressional Democrats have been preparing to probe such incidents.

“The Committee has been following allegations that the Trump Administration is making political affiliation a factor in employment for some time now,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Washington Sun in a statement. “These are critical national security positions and individuals should be chosen for their experience and ability, not their political loyalty. We are working with the House and other relevant committees to thoroughly investigate all such claims.”

While the federal government employs thousands of political appointees who turnover with each administration, the vast majority of the government workforce are permanent, career staff intended to be shielded from political interference.

Federal law directly prohibits federal officials from making any personnel decisions on the basis of political affiliation.

A spokesperson for the State Department declined to comment on the voting history questions but emphasized the importance of “fidelity” in a statement.

“Fidelity means upholding the Constitution and the law and executing policy with loyalty to the American people and their interests,” the spokesperson said. “It emphasizes the critical importance of service, integrity, and policy alignment across the Foreign Service. It is not about partisan behavior but rather about executing the president’s vision for foreign policy.”

The spokesperson added that Secretary Marco Rubio has prioritized merit and rewarding “demonstrated performance on behalf of administration priorities” in promoting career staff into leadership positions.

In July of last year, the State Department added a “fidelity” section to the foreign service’s performance-evaluation process, requiring managers to assess employees’ commitment to “completely aligning oneself and one’s team to the most current [U.S. government] goals.”

The department also announced last year it was remaking the Foreign Service Officer Test, which all candidates must pass. One person who recently took the exam said it included questions about the impact of former President Ronald Reagan’s tax policies and the accomplishments of Trump’s Mike Pompeo, who was secretary of State during Trump’s first term.

“There was just something about the test that made it seem like they weren’t looking for the highest scores but people who answered a certain way on specific questions,” the person said.

Trump and Rubio have moved to remake the nation’s diplomatic corps. The State Department has shed nearly one-fourth of its workforce through layoffs and various separation incentives. It has awarded a $1 million, no-bid contract to a recruitment firm whose CEO has said more Christians should serve in government and hiring at the department had become too “woke.”

As The Washington Sun reported, veteran foreign service officials have also been boxed out of senior positions, asked to resign and sidelined in major foreign policy decisions. Those efforts have led to a wave of recent departures from the diplomatic corps’ top ranks.

“This is more evidence that there is conduct to get rid of folks because of perceived political affiliations,” one congressional aide not authorized to speak to the press said of the State Department asking foreign service candidates about their voting history.

The Trump administration has faced some legal action against its efforts to identify supporters among the civil service.

It previously overhauled the federal hiring process by requiring applicants to write short essays on their favorite Trump policies, but it subsequently replaced those questions under court order.

Federal workers’ unions have also sued over the administration’s plans to create a new class of workers who can be fired for any reason.

Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a good government advocacy group, said State’s latest actions mark an “appalling and flagrant disregard of federal law” designed to protect federal workers from being evaluated based on political allegiance.

“This is yet another shocking example of the Trump administration hurtling our government back in time to the spoils system of the 19th century,” Stier said. “Ultimately, it’s the safety and security of the American people that are being compromised.”

It was early this year when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wanted to move the world. A replica of it, anyway.

Two floor globes said to be used by Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower during World War II are housed in the Pentagon, where subsequent generations of Army leaders became custodians of the artifacts, according to people familiar with the globe’s lineage and an accompanying plaque dating them to the 1930s.

The historical significance was attractive to Hegseth, these people said, and his staff requested that the secretary’s office become the new home to one of the 30-inch globes.

Ordinarily, moving historical items within the building is a deliberate process overseen by trained curators. Instead, Hegseth’s staff dispatched its own team to relocate an Eisenhower globe. They lost control of the artifact and dropped it, sending the globe crashing onto its base and impaling the fragile shell near Antarctica, according to those familiar with the incident. The resulting gash appears to be several inches wide.

Pentagon officials denied The Washington Post’s request for a photo of the globe or to examine the artifact in person, but The Post separately obtained images of the damage.

The Army, in an email to The Post, acknowledged that the globe was damaged and said it occurred during an “attempted move” Feb. 3. Aside from the hole, “the spherical portion of the globe was detached from the metal mounting that allows it to rotate,” spokesman Christopher Surridge said in response to questions. Ultimately, the damaged relic was not relocated, he said.

Asked where the movers came from, Surridge referred The Post to Hegseth’s office. Spokespeople for the defense secretary did not respond to a request for comment.

The Army office in possession of the globe had expected to consult with experts at the U.S. Army Center of Military History on how to ensure its safe transport and properly document its new relocation to Hegseth’s office, according to two people familiar with the matter. Like others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a previously undisclosed incident that is viewed as an embarrassment within the Defense Department.

The history staffers were furloughed due to a partial government shutdown stemming from a dispute in Congress over aspects of the Trump administration’s immigration policy. When the experts could not be reached, Hegseth’s staff decided to move the globe themselves, these people said.

It is unclear why Hegseth’s team did not wait for experienced help to move the artifact during the partial government shutdown, which ended the same day the globe was damaged. An “apparent lack of patience,” said one person familiar with the situation, appeared to be a factor.

The episode became instant fodder for gossip and jokes inside the Pentagon, with some decrying the apparent brashness and affinity for World War II nostalgia that they characterized as common themes throughout Hegseth’s tenure as defense secretary.

Hegseth, a former National Guard officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, uses the title “secretary of war.” He carried out Trump’s executive order last year to rebrand the Defense Department as the War Department, reverting to the name that was used from 1789 to 1947. Congress has not authorized either name change.

Eisenhower served as a five-star general during the war and is credited with coordinating the defeat of Nazi Germany through major operations, including the D-Day landings in France in 1944. After retiring, he went on to become president from 1953 to 1961, leading the United States through the early days of the Cold War.

Since the agency became the Defense Department under President Harry S. Truman, “we haven’t won a major war since,” Hegseth said last year.

Ty Seidule, a retired brigadier general who taught history at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, lamented news that the globe had been damaged.

“Hegseth wants an Eisenhower totem to be like Ike, brilliant in war and peace,” Seidule said. He has criticized the defense secretary previously for overriding a policy change that removed Confederate names and symbology from several military bases located in the southern U.S., an effort Seidule helped lead.

“Hegseth is no Ike. The globe won’t give him Ike’s attributes of humility, intellect and judgment,” Seidule said.

It is unclear whether Hegseth personally ordered the globe’s relocation, or if another senior official in his office may have done so. It also is unclear whether Hegseth’s aides were prepared with the appropriate materials to move the artifact.

Another globe similar in design and linked to Eisenhower was transferred in recent years from a military history storage site in Alabama to a nearby Army installation. That globe was wrapped in protective covering and secured in a crate before it was moved.

“Since the globe is considered priceless, we knew its value was much greater than financial, and that our team was heavily relied upon for a safe delivery,” the moving company Craters and Freighters wrote in a 2022 account published online.

A sign on display with the globe that was damaged said that it is one of two “Eisenhower globes” that the Army possesses within the Pentagon, according to the photographs obtained by The Post.

“According to popular theory, the one in this room was first used by Dwight D. Eisenhower while serving on the General Staff as Chief of the War Plans Division from February to March 1942 and Operations Division from March to June 1942,” the sign states. “It is conjectured that this was retained by the successors to the Operations Division, known today as the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-35.”

The other globe is on display in the office of the chief of staff of the Army, the service’s top general, and has pen marks on it from both Eisenhower and Gen. Omar Bradley, another iconic senior officer during World War II, officials said.

Eisenhower had a well-known fondness for globes and is seen in numerous historical photographs posing with them.

Apart from the three globes known to the Army, he sent another to Truman after the war, which remained in the Oval Office through the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, according to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum. That globe is on loan to the Truman library in Missouri.