order

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles was illegal, which the sane and democracy-loving among us should applaud — though of course an appeal is coming.

During the trial, though, a concerning but little-noticed exchange popped up between lawyers for the state of California and Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who was in charge of the federalized National Guard forces in L.A. It should have been an explosive, red-flag moment highlighting the pressure our military leaders are under to shake off their oath to the Constitution in favor of fealty to Trump.

Sherman testified that he objected to National Guard involvement in a show-of-force operation in MacArthur Park, where Latino families often congregate.

That action, Sherman said, was originally slated for Father’s Day, an especially busy time at the park. Internal documents showed it was considered it a “high-risk” operation. Sherman said he feared his troops would be pushed into confrontations with civilians if Border Patrol became overwhelmed by the crowds on that June Sunday.

Gregory Bovino, in charge of the immigration efforts in L.A. for the Border Patrol, questioned Sherman’s “loyalty to the country,” Sherman testified, for just showing hesitation about the wisdom and legality of an order.

It’s the pressure that “you’re not being patriotic if you don’t blow by the law and violate it and just bend the knee and and exhibit complete fealty and loyalty to Trump,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Tuesday. And it’s a warning of what’s to come as Trump continues to press for military involvement in civilian law enforcement across the country.

For the record, Sherman has served our country for decades, earning along the way the prestigious Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star and the Meritorious Service Medal among other accolades.

The MacArthur Park operation, according to the Department of Homeland Security, was itself little more than a performative display of power “to demonstrate, through a show of presence, the capacity and freedom of maneuver of federal law enforcement within the Los Angeles,” according to agency documents presented in court. It was dubbed Operation Excalibur, in honor of the legendary sword of King Arthur that granted him divine right to rule, a point also included in court documents.

But none of that mattered. Instead, Sherman was pushed to exhibit the kind of blind loyalty to a dear leader that you’d expect to be demanded in dictatorships like those of North Korea or Hungary. Loyalty that confuses — or transforms — a duty to the Constitution with allegiance to Trump. Military experts warn that Sherman’s experience isn’t an isolated incident.

“There’s a chilling effect against pushing back or at least openly questioning any kind of orders,” Rachel E. VanLandingham, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, told me. She’s former active duty judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force who now teaches at Southwestern Law School and serves as a national security law expert.

VanLandingham sees the leadership of our armed forces under pressure “to not engage in the critical thinking, which, as commanders, they are required to do, and to instead go along to get along.” She sees Sherman’s testimony as a “telling glimpse into the wearing away” of that crucial independence.

Such a shift in allegiance would undermine any court order keeping the military out of civilian law enforcement, leaving Trump with exactly the boots on the ground power he has sought since his first term. This is not theoretical.

Through Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Trump has purged the top ranks of the military of those who aren’t loyal to him. In February, Hegseth fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Black soldier who championed diversity in the armed forces. Hegseth has also purged the head of the Pentagon’s intelligence agency, the head of the National Security Agency, the chief of Naval Operations, multiple senior female military staff and senior military lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force. In August, he fired the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency after that general gave a truthful assessment of our bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites, angering Trump.

At the same time, the military is being pushed farther into civilian affairs, and not just as erstwhile cops. The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Hegseth ordered 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges.

Not to dive too deep into the convoluted immigration system, but these are civilian legal positions, another possible violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, VanLandingham points out.

And beyond that, can a military lawyer — trained and bound to follow orders — really act as an impartial judge in proceedings where the administration’s wish to deport is clearly known?

Goodbye due process, goodbye fair trial.

That “looks like martial law when you have militarized … judicial proceedings,” VanLandingham said. “How can we trust they are making unbiased decisions? You can’t.”

And even though Sherman pushed back on a full-blown military presence in MacArthur Park, that raid did happen. Federal agents marched through, about three weeks after Father’s Day, with National Guard troops remaining in their vehicles on the perimeter. It was Hegseth himself who authorized the mission.

Sherman also said on the stand that he was told there were “exceptions” to the Posse Comitatus Act — the law being debated in the trial that prevents the military from being used as civilian law enforcement — and that the president had the power to decide what those exceptions were.

“So your understanding is that while [some actions] are on the list of prohibited functions, you can do them under some circumstances?” Judge Charles Breyer asked.

“That’s the legal advice I received,” Sherman answered.

“And the president has the authority to make that decision?” Breyer asked.

“The president has the authority,” Sherman answered.

But does he?

Breyer also asked during the trial, if the president’s powers to both command troops and interpret law are so boundless, “What’s to prevent a national police force?” What, in effect, could stop Trump’s Excalibur-inspired inclinations?

For now, it’s the courts and ethical, mid-level commanders like Sherman, whose common-sense bravery and decency kept the military out of MacArthur Park.

Men and women who understand that the oaths they have sworn are to our country, not the man who would be king.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration’s deployment of U.S. military troops to Los Angeles during immigration raids earlier this year was illegal.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer found the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which limited the use of the military for law enforcement purposes. He stayed his ruling to give the administration a chance to appeal.

“President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have stated their intention to call National Guard troops into service in other cities across the country … thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief,” Breyer wrote.

The ruling could have implications beyond Los Angeles.

Trump, who sent roughly 5,000 Marines and National Guard troops to L.A. in June in a move that was opposed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, issued an executive order declaring a public safety emergency in D.C. The order invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act that places the Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control.

In June, Breyer ruled that Trump broke the law when he mobilized thousands of California National Guard members against the state’s wishes.

In a 36-page decision, Breyer wrote that Trump’s actions “were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paused that court order, allowing the troops to remain in Los Angeles while the case plays out in federal court. The appellate court found the president had broad, though not “unreviewable,” authority to deploy the military in American cities.

In his Tuesday ruling Breyer added: “The evidence at trial established that Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles. In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping outlines plans for new development bank and financing options for SCO members.

China and Russia presented their vision of a new international order at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, where Beijing offered new financial incentives to countries aligned with the Beijing-led economic and security group.

“Global governance has reached a new crossroads,” Chinese President Xi Jinping told the summit on Monday, in remarks that were widely seen as a critique of the United States.

“We must continue to take a clear stand against hegemonism and power politics, and practise true multilateralism,” Xi said.

Xi’s remarks were echoed by those of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said the SCO would revive “genuine multilateralism” as it laid “the political and socioeconomic groundwork for the formation of a new system of stability and security in Eurasia”.

Xi and Putin spoke to more than 20 leaders, primarily from the Middle East and Asia, who had gathered on Sunday and Monday for the summit in the northern Chinese city of Tianjin.

Seen as an alternative power structure to most US-led international institutions, the 10-member SCO includes much of Central Asia, Russia, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Belarus, with more than a dozen permanent dialogue partner countries, including Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, Qatar, and Turkiye.

Though the work of the SCO has been largely symbolic since its founding in 2001, Xi outlined grander ambitions for the bloc at the summit.

Xi called for the creation of a new SCO development bank, and announced 2 billion RMB ($280m) in grants plus another 10 billion RMB ($1.4bn) in loans for SCO members.

The pivot into international finance marks a major turning point for the institution, said Eric Olander, the editor-in-chief of The China-Global South Project.

“Since the SCO’s founding 24 years ago, it has been a largely ineffective body with very few notable accomplishments. I think that’s going to change as the membership expands and Xi backs the SCO with development finance money, which is something we haven’t seen before,” he told Al Jazeera.

Xi also outlined a new “Global Governance Initiative” (GGI).

While light on details beyond espousing values such as “multilateralism” and “sovereign equality”, Olander said Xi’s speech offers insight into Beijing’s global ambitions.

“With the GGI, Xi is basically saying the quiet part out loud, that China is seeking to create a parallel global governance system outside the US and European-led order, something that would have been inconceivable a decade ago,” Olander said.

He attributed the shift to changing perceptions of the US in world affairs and demand from the Global South for a greater say in international affairs.

China’s push for multilateralism also comes at a time of growing distrust with the US under the leadership of President Donald Trump, whose trade war has provided SCO members and sometimes-rivals – such as China and India – with common grievances.

Ties between New Delhi and China plummeted in 2020 following skirmishes along their joint border in the Himalayas.

While relations began to normalise last year following a border agreement, Trump’s trade war has helped to speed up thawing diplomatic ties between the countries, according to analysts.

Xi and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged to resolve their differences at the summit, which came just days after Trump imposed a punitive 50 percent tariff on Indian goods and blasted the country for its purchase of Russian energy exports.

Xi, Modi, and Putin were also photographed talking and walking together, in another sign of diplomatic unity.

Most of the world leaders attending the SCO are expected to remain in China this week to attend a huge military parade in Beijing on Wednesday, commemorating the end of World War II in Asia.

They will be joined by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who is expected to have a prominent position at the parade alongside Xi and Putin.

Israel is rewriting the rules of the game in the Middle East, not through diplomacy, peace treaties, or multilateral negotiations, but by deploying advanced military tools such as drones, guided missiles, cyberattacks, and cross-border intelligence operations. This aggressive approach, often justified under the banner of “self-defense,” goes beyond defense in practice and has resulted in a violent reconfiguration of the region’s political geography. While the United States should strategically focus on containing China, competing in technology, and maintaining dominance in the Asia-Pacific, Israeli policies have dragged Washington into a quagmire of costly and unending conflicts in the Middle East. This situation has not only undermined regional stability but has also jeopardized America’s global standing. Furthermore, this fragmented and chaotic Middle East demands greater energy and resources from the U.S., offering an opportunity for other actors to exploit this disorder to expand their influence.

Israel and the Violent Redesign of Middle Eastern Geography

Over the past decade, Israel has significantly altered its approach to perceived security threats. Rather than relying on diplomatic tools or classical deterrence, it has embraced a strategy that can best be described as a violent redesign of the Middle East’s geography. This strategy includes a combination of targeted assassinations, precision bombings, sophisticated cyberattacks, and deep intelligence operations inside neighboring countries. While the stated objective is to neutralize threats from actors like Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, resistance groups in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and Palestinian resistance movements, the actual result has gone far beyond defense, raising fundamental questions about the territorial sovereignty of other nations in the region. 

    Israel’s repeated strikes on targets in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, and most recently inside Iran, have not only violated national sovereignty but rendered traditional red lines—defined by international treaties—virtually meaningless. These actions send a clear message to the region: in the new Middle East order, borders are no longer defined through diplomatic agreements but by military power and the flight paths of drones and missiles. What we are witnessing today in the Middle East surpasses traditional conflicts or conventional warfare. Israel is creating a new missile-based order in which the rules of engagement are dictated not by negotiations or international treaties, but by military and technological superiority. In this new order, drones and guided missiles have become tools for rewriting the region’s political and military boundaries. Although this strategy is ostensibly designed to secure Israel, it has in practice contributed to the growing instability across the region.

    The message of this new order to regional actors is unmistakably clear: deterrence is no longer achieved through diplomacy or conventional state armies. In the absence of coordinated responses from regional governments, non-state resistance groups have emerged as the only effective counterforce to these aggressions. Groups like the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza—despite their ideological and political differences—share one common goal: resisting Israel’s military and intelligence dominance. This decentralized, networked resistance has posed an unprecedented challenge to Israel. Unlike traditional wars fought in defined battlefields with clear enemies, these confrontations lack both fixed timelines and geographic clarity. Even Israel’s most advanced defense systems, such as the Iron Dome, face limitations in confronting these diffuse and asymmetric threats.

A Geopolitical Challenge for Washington

The strategic and political alignment between the United States and Israel has elevated this from a regional crisis to a global challenge for Washington. At a time when the U.S. should be allocating its resources to compete with China, secure maritime routes in the Asia-Pacific, protect Taiwan, and drive technological innovation, it is now forced to spend a significant share of its time, resources, and international credibility managing the fallout of Israeli policies. America’s unwavering support for Israel, from advanced arms sales to diplomatic cover at the UN Security Council and intelligence cooperation, has made it an active partner in this new missile order. Every Israeli strike on Iranian, Lebanese, Syrian, or Iraqi territory, directly or indirectly, implicates the United States. Israel’s recent attacks on Iran, Syria, Yemen, and deep inside Iraq have compelled Washington to again bolster its military presence in the region. The more America is drawn into managing Middle Eastern crises, the less it can concentrate on global rivalries, especially with China.

    This dynamic is particularly costly at a time when the U.S. is attempting to rebuild its image among countries of the Global South. Across the Islamic world—from North Africa to Central Asia—Israeli actions are viewed not as defensive, but as acts of aggression and occupation. Since the U.S. stands fully behind Israel, this animosity is directly projected onto Washington. Even America’s traditional allies in the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are now distancing themselves from U.S. favoritism and moving toward engagement with other powers like China and Russia.

    One of the most consequential outcomes of this new missile order is the shift in regional discourse. Whereas peace and negotiation were once regarded as primary means of conflict resolution, power now defines the regional order. Through its actions, Israel has demonstrated that the rules of engagement are no longer based on international agreements or even traditional diplomatic norms but on military and technological capability. This shift has not only militarized the region further but also placed the United States in a difficult position. While Washington tries to present itself as a mediator for peace and a guardian of global stability, its unconditional support for Israel has severely tarnished that image.

    Some analysts in Washington may still argue that Israel is America’s first line of defense in the Middle East. However, that view—rooted in Cold War logic—no longer aligns with the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. If this “defense” leads to expanded conflict zones, intensified regional hostilities, and a stronger axis of resistance, it can no longer be considered a strategic asset. Israel has become a liability that holds American geopolitics hostage. The costs of this situation are multifaceted: military costs to sustain a regional presence; political costs from losing credibility in international institutions; missed opportunities in competing with China; and the growing influence of other powers in the security vacuum of the Middle East.
    The fundamental question for American policymakers is this: is the United States prepared to sacrifice its 21st-century geopolitical future for unconditional loyalty to a single ally? However strategically important Israel may be, it cannot alone justify America’s deviation from its global priorities. It is time for Washington to redefine its support for Israel—not based on historical habit or domestic pressures, but grounded in long-term national interest. This redefinition could include pressuring Israel to return to diplomacy, scale back aggressive actions, and strengthen regional cooperation. Without such a shift, Israel’s new missile order will not only further destabilize the Middle East but also place the United States on a trajectory where the costs far outweigh the benefits.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has unveiled his ambition for a new global security and economic order to challenge the United States and Europe. Xi was joined by Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in China.

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Sunday that immigration operations will soon be expanded in Chicago, confirming plans for a stepped-up presence of federal agents in the nation’s third-largest city as President Trump continues to lash out at Illinois’ Democratic leadership.

Noem’s comments came a day after Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson struck back against what he called the “out-of-control” plan to surge federal officers into the city. The Chicago Police Department will be barred from helping federal authorities with civil immigration enforcement or any related patrols, traffic stops and checkpoints during the surge, according to an executive order Johnson signed Saturday.

The Homeland Security Department last week requested limited logistical support from officials at the Naval Station Great Lakes to support the agency’s anticipated operations. The military installation is about 35 miles north of Chicago.

“We’ve already had ongoing operations with ICE in Chicago … but we do intend to add more resources to those operations,” Noem said during a Sunday appearance CBS News’ ”Face the Nation.”

Noem declined to provide further details about the planned surge of federal officers. It comes after the Trump administration deployed National Guard troops to Washington, saying they were needed to target crime, immigration and homelessness, and two months after it sent troops to Los Angeles.

Trump lashed out against Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker in a social media posting Saturday, warning him that he must straighten out Chicago’s crime problems quickly “or we’re coming.” The Republican president has also been critical of Johnson.

Johnson and Pritzker, both Democrats, have denounced the expected federal mobilization, noting that crime has fallen in Chicago. They are planning to sue if Trump moves forward with the plan.

In his order signed Saturday, Johnson directed all city departments to guard the constitutional rights of Chicago residents “amidst the possibility of imminent militarized immigration or National Guard deployment by the federal government.”

Asked during a news conference about federal agents who are presumably “taking orders,” Johnson replied: “Yeah, and I don’t take orders from the federal government.”

Johnson also blocked Chicago police from wearing face coverings to hide their identities, as most federal immigration officers have done since Trump launched his crackdown.

The federal surge into Chicago could start as early as Friday and last about 30 days, according to two U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss plans that had not been made public.

Pritzker, in an interview aired Sunday on “Face the Nation,” said that Trump’s expected plans to mobilize federal forces in the city may be part of a plan to “stop the elections in 2026 or, frankly, take control of those elections.”

Noem said it was a Trump “prerogative” whether to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago as he did in Los Angeles in June in the midst of protests there against immigration raids.

“I do know that L.A. wouldn’t be standing today if President Trump hadn’t taken action,” Noem said. “That city would have burned if left to devices of the mayor and governor of that state.”

Unlike the recent federal takeover of policing in Washington, the Chicago operation is not expected to rely on the National Guard or military and is focused exclusively on immigration, rather than being cast as part of a broad campaign against crime, Trump administration officials have said.

Chicago is home to a large immigrant population, and both the city and the state of Illinois have some of the country’s strongest rules against cooperating with federal immigration enforcement efforts. That has often put the city and state at odds with the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda.

Johnson’s order builds on the city’s longtime stance, that neither Chicago nor Illinois officials have sought or been consulted on the federal presence and they stand against Trump’s mobilization plan.

During his news conference Saturday, Johnson accused the president of “behaving outside the bounds of the Constitution” and seeking a federal presence in Democratic cities as retribution against his political rivals.

“He is reckless and out of control,” Johnson said. “He’s the biggest threat to our democracy that we’ve experienced in the history of our country.”

In response, the White House contended that the potential flood of federal agents was about “cracking down on crime.”

“If these Democrats focused on fixing crime in their own cities instead of doing publicity stunts to criticize the President, their communities would be much safer,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in an email Saturday.

Critics have noted that Trump, while espousing a tough-on-crime push, is the only felon ever to occupy the White House.

Madhani and Beck write for the Associated Press and reported from Washington and Chicago, respectively.

Aug. 31 (UPI) — President Donald Trump announced late Saturday that he would sign an executive order requiring voters to present identification when casting ballots.

“Voter ID must be part of every single vote. No exceptions!” Trump said on his Truth Social platform. “I will be doing an executive order to that end! Also, no mail-in voting, except for those that are very ill, and the far away military. Use paper ballots only!”

The president did not provide any further details about the planned executive order, which comes amid his push to influence how elections are carried out in the United States. Trump has long claimed without evidence that voter fraud cost him the 2020 presidential election.

This is not Trump’s first foray into voter ID via executive order. In March, he signed a similar mandate requiring documentary proof of citizenship, such as passports or government-issued IDs, for voter registration in federal elections.

At the time, a White House fact sheet described the executive order as a way “to protect the integrity of American elections.”

“There are other steps that we will be taking in the coming weeks and we think we’ll be able to end up getting fair elections,” Trump hinted at the time. “This country is so sick because of the elections, the fake elections and the bad elections and we’re going to straighten it out one way or the other.”

But that order encountered immediate backlash, with critics characterizing it as a modern-day poll tax, arguing that many Americans lack the required documents, and warning it would disenfranchise low-income, elderly and marginalized voters.

A federal court later blocked the order’s documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal voter registration forms, citing constitutional overreach.

Similarly, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and others have vocally opposed nationwide voter ID mandates, viewing them as attempts to undermine progressive state-level voting reforms and restrict access to the ballot box.

It is expected that the latest executive order will also be widely and swiftly challenged ahead of the midterm elections in November 2026.

US president is seeking to overhaul country’s electoral system, falsely claiming his 2020 loss was a result of fraud.

United States President Donald Trump has announced plans to sign an executive order requiring voter identification from every voter.

“Voter I.D. Must Be Part of Every Single Vote. NO EXCEPTIONS! I Will Be Doing An Executive Order To That End!!!,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform on Saturday.

“Also, No Mail-In Voting, Except For Those That Are Very Ill, And The Far Away Military,” he added.

The announcement comes as Trump seeks to overhaul the electoral system in the US over false claims that his 2020 loss to Democratic President Joe Biden was the result of widespread fraud.

The president and his Republican allies also have made baseless claims about widespread voting by non-citizens, which is illegal and rarely occurs.

For years, he has called for the end of electronic voting machines, pushing instead for the use of paper ballots and hand counts, a process that election officials say is time-consuming, costly and far less accurate than machine counting.

In March this year, Trump signed a sweeping executive order that included requirements for documentary proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections and for all ballots to be received by Election Day.

A judge in April blocked parts of that order, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement, saying that the US Constitution gives the power to regulate federal elections to states and Congress – not the president.

Trump, meanwhile, pledged to also issue an executive order to end the use of mail-in ballots and voting machines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

The November 3, 2026, elections will be the first nationwide referendum on Trump’s domestic and foreign policies since he returned to power in January. Democrats will be seeking to break the Republicans’ grip on both the House of Representatives and the Senate to block Trump’s domestic agenda.

The mayor of Chicago has signed an executive order seeking to protect residents against a possible decision by United States President Donald Trump’s administration to deploy federal troops to the city.

Mayor Brandon Johnson announced on Saturday that he was signing the so-called Protecting Chicago Initiative amid what he said were “credible reports” that Chicago could see militarised activity by the federal government within days.

“It is unclear at this time what that will look like exactly,” the mayor said at a news conference. “We may see militarised immigration enforcement. We may also see National Guard troops. We may even see active duty military and armed vehicles in our streets.”

Among other things, the order directs Chicago law enforcement officers not to collaborate with US military personnel on patrols or during immigration enforcement activities, Johnson told reporters.

He described the move as “the most sweeping campaign of any city in the country to protect ourselves from the threats and actions of this out-of-control administration”.

Johnson’s announcement comes after Trump earlier this month said that he was considering whether to expand his National Guard troop deployment from Washington, DC, to other major cities across the country.

Trump called up the National Guard in what he said was a push to address crime in the US capital. The Republican leader has since credited the deployment with cutting down rates of violence in the city.

But data from the Metropolitan Police Department showed violent crime in Washington, DC, was already at a 30-year low, and critics warned that the crackdown could end up being a test run for the broader militarisation of US cities.

Earlier this week, the top Democrat in the US House of Representatives, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, said in an interview with CNN that Trump had “no authority” to send federal troops to Chicago.

The US Constitution gives the power of policing to the states.

JB Pritzker, the Democratic governor of Illinois, where Chicago is located, also rejected the idea.

“Donald Trump is attempting to manufacture a crisis, politicize Americans who serve in uniform, and continue abusing his power to distract from the pain he is causing working families,” Pritzker said in a statement.

Citing unnamed sources familiar with the matter, CNN reported on Friday that the Trump administration has been preparing to carry out a “major immigration enforcement operation” in Chicago as early as next week.

According to CNN, White House officials said those plans are separate from Trump’s idea of sending National Guard troops to Chicago for a broader crackdown on crime.

The president, who took office in January for a second term, has pursued a hardline, anti-immigration agenda and pledged to carry out the “largest deportation operation” in US history.

The administration has justified its push by saying it is deporting “criminals” who are in the US illegally. It has reached deals with third countries to take in deported asylum seekers and migrants.

But US media reports over the past months have shown that many people have been swept up in the immigration raids, including some American citizens and permanent residents with no criminal records.

In June, Trump sent 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles after an intensified wave of arrests by US immigration authorities prompted massive protests and confrontations between demonstrators and police.

On Saturday, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson slammed the Chicago mayor’s executive order, saying in a statement shared by US media outlets that “cracking down on crime should not be a partisan issue”.

“If these Democrats focused on fixing crime in their own cities instead of doing publicity stunts to criticize the President, their communities would be much safer,” Jackson said.

During his news conference, Johnson, the mayor, said it remained unclear whether Trump would go ahead with his plans in the city.

“He could change his mind, he could reverse course – in fact, I encourage him to do that,” Johnson said, stressing that Chicago – the country’s third largest city – does not want its residents rounded up off the streets.

“We do not want to see families ripped apart. We do not want grandmothers thrown into the backs of unmarked vans. We don’t want to see homeless Chicagoans harassed or disappeared by federal agents,” he added.

Aug. 30 (UPI) — Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson on Saturday signed an executive order that demands President Donald Trump end “his threats to deploy the National Guard” to his city.

The “Protecting Chicago Initiative” is in response to a “credible threat” that troops will be deployed in a few days, and directs the city to pursue all legal and legislative avenues stop stop the deployment.

“I do not take this executive action lightly,” Johnson said during a signing in the mayor’s ceremonial office, said. “I would’ve preferred to work more collaboratively to pass legislation … but unfortunately we do not have the luxury of time. We have received credible reports that we have days, not weeks, before our city sees some kind of militarized activity by the federal government.”

In addition, the order affirms that Chicago police will remain a locally controlled law enforcement agency. Earlier this month, when Trump deployed troops to Washington, D.C., the Trump administration took over the police department.

“We do not want military checkpoints or armored vehicles on our streets and we do not want to see families ripped apart,” Johnson said. “We will take any action necessary to protect the rights of all Chicagoans.”

Federal law enforcement and U.S. Armed Forces in the order are told to abide by municipal laws, including not concealing their identities, using body cameras when interacting with a member of the public and displaying which agency they are with, including their last name and badge number.

“This executive order makes it emphatically clear this president is not going to come in and deputize our police department,” Johnson said. “We do not want to see tanks in our streets. We do not want families ripped apart. … And I don’t take orders from the federal government.”

The Naval Station Great Lakes, about 40 miles north of downtown Chicago in North Chicago, confirmed that it is preparing to host federal immigration agents. The base, which is the largest military installation in the state, is planning to host more than 200 federal agents from Tuesday to Sept. 30.

Johnson has set Friday as the arrival date.

The Naval base is in Lake County, north of Cook County.

Esiah Campos, the county’s Board Commissioner and Navy corpsman who finished his training at Naval Station Great Lakes in 2020, urged state legislators Friday to ban law enforcement from using masks statewide. Also for Lake County mayors to reaffirm their commitment not to assist ICE.

“It hurts to see the base I drilled out of to house ICE and Homeland Security agents to terrorize our people,” Campos said at a Friday news conference with other legislators and community groups in North Chicago’s Veterans Memorial Park. “This is not a time for platitudes. Now is a time for action.”

Since 1985 Chicago has been a sanctuary city, which limits local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzer has told Trump the federal response is not needed, considering crime has fallen significantly.

On Tuesday, he posted on X: “If Trump wants to get to Chicago, he’s going to have to go through us. And we’re not backing down.”

During a news conference in Chicago on Thursday, he said: “Donald Trump is exactly the kind of person that our founders warned us about. He cozies up to dictators like Putin because he idolizes them. His actions are dangerous and un-American.

Trump has said he would tackle crime next in Chicago after deploying personnel to the nation’s capital, which is a federal jurisdiction.

“We’re going to make our cities very, very safe,” Trump said on Aug. 22. “Chicago’s a mess. You have an incompetent mayor. Grossly incompetent and we’ll straighten that one out probably next. That will be our next one after this. And it won’t even be tough.”

“No, Donald. You can’t do whatever you want,” the governor responded to the president on X.

Through late August, Chicago had 266 homicides in 2025, according to the Chicago Police Department, the Chicago Tribune reported.

The Midwest city is “about 25% below where they were in the first half of 2019,” Ernesto Lopez, a senior research specialist at the Council on Criminal Justice, told the Chicago Sun Times.

In 2024, there were 581 murders in Chicago with 621 in 2023 in a city of 2.7 million people.

The top homicide rate is in Memphis, Tenn., with 409 per 100,000 for a total of 372 in 2023. Chicago wasn’t even in the top 15 with 29.7 per 100,000.

The drop in homicides in Chicago from 2019 to 2025 was significantly larger than the national average.

Chicago’s highest concentrations of crime is in neighborhoods on the South and West sides, and not downtown.

The governor showed off parts of the city this week, including where crime dropped.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants detained in the interior of the United States.

The move is a setback for President Trump’s efforts to expand the use of the federal expedited removal statute to quickly remove some undocumented migrants without appearing before a judge first.

Trump promised to engineer a massive deportation operation during his 2024 campaign if voters returned him to the White House. And he set a goal of carrying out 1 million deportations a year in his second term.

But U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb suggested the administration’s expanded use of the expedited removal of migrants is trampling on due process rights.

“In defending this skimpy process, the Government makes a truly startling argument: that those who entered the country illegally are entitled to no process under the Fifth Amendment, but instead must accept whatever grace Congress affords them,” Cobb wrote in a 48-page opinion issued Friday night. “Were that right, not only noncitizens, but everyone would be at risk.”

The Department of Homeland Security announced shortly after Trump came to office in January that it was expanding the use of expedited removal, the fast-track deportation of undocumented migrants who have been in the U.S. less than two years.

The effort has triggered lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union and immigrant rights groups.

Homeland Security said in a statement that Cobb’s “ruling ignores the President’s clear authorities under both Article II of the Constitution and the plain language of federal law.” It said Trump “has a mandate to arrest and deport the worst of the worst” and that ”we have the law, facts, and common sense on our side.”

Before the administration’s push to expand such speedy deportations, expedited removal was used only for migrants who were stopped within 100 miles of the border and who had been in the U.S. for less than 14 days.

Cobb, an appointee of President Biden, didn’t question the constitutionality of the expedited removal statute or its application at the border.

“It merely holds that in applying the statute to a huge group of people living in the interior of the country who have not previously been subject to expedited removal, the Government must afford them due process,” she wrote.

She added that “prioritizing speed over all else will inevitably lead the Government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process.”

Cobb earlier this month agreed to temporarily block the administration’s efforts to expand fast-track deportations of immigrants who legally entered the U.S. under a process known as humanitarian parole. The ruling could benefit hundreds of thousands of people.

In that case the judge said Homeland Security exceeded its statutory authority in its effort to expand expedited removal for many immigrants. The judge said those immigrants are facing perils that outweigh any harm from “pressing pause” on the administration’s plans.

Since May, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have positioned themselves in hallways to arrest people after judges accept government requests to dismiss deportation cases. After the arrests, the government renews deportation proceedings but under fast-track authority.

Although fast-track deportations can be put on hold by filing an asylum claim, people may be unaware of that right and, even if they are, can be swiftly removed if they fail an initial screening.

Madhani writes for the Associated Press.

NEW ORLEANS — A federal appeals court has vacated a ruling that a Texas law giving police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S. was unconstitutional.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday vacated a ruling by a three-judge panel, and now the full court will consider whether the law can take effect.

The Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 4 in 2023, but a federal judge in Texas ruled the law unconstitutional. Texas appealed that ruling.

Under the proposed law, state law enforcement officers could arrest people suspected of entering the country illegally. Once in custody, detainees could agree to a Texas judge’s order to leave the country or face a misdemeanor charge of entering the U.S. illegally. Migrants who don’t leave after being ordered to do so could be arrested again and charged with a more serious felony.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a social media post Friday that the court’s decision was a “hopeful sign.”

Crenshaw High has started its football season 2-0 but has done so without longtime head coach Robert Garrett.

Terrance Whitehead has been serving as interim head coach and running practices.

In a phone call Friday, Garrett said, “I’m just following [school] orders. There’s no wrongdoing on my part.”

Garrett, who has been head coach since 1988, entered this season with 290 career victories.

Crenshaw interim coach Terrance Whitehead speaking with quarterback Daniell Flowers.

(Robert H. Helfman)

Asked when he might return, Garrett said his absence is “indefinite.”

A call and an email to the district office, which was closed Friday, went unanswered.

Crenshaw plays Hamilton next week.

ORLANDO, Fla. — Florida taxpayers could be on the hook for $218 million the state spent to convert a remote training airport in the Everglades into an immigration detention center dubbed “ Alligator Alcatraz.”

The facility may soon be empty as a judge upheld her decision late Wednesday ordering operations to wind down indefinitely.

Shutting down the facility for the time being would cost the state $15 million to $20 million immediately, and it would cost another $15 million to $20 million to reinstall structures if Florida is allowed to reopen it, according to court filings by the state.

The Florida Division of Emergency Management will lose most of the value of the $218 million it has invested in making the airport suitable for a detention center, a state official said in court papers.

Built in just a few days, the facility consists of chain-link cages surrounding large white tents filled with rows of bunk beds. As of late July, state officials had already signed more than $245 million in contracts for building and operating the facility, which officially opened July 1.

President Trump toured the facility last month and suggested it could be a model for future lockups nationwide as his administration races to expand the infrastructure needed to increase deportations.

The center has been plagued by reports of unsanitary conditions and detainees being cut off from the legal system.

It’s also facing several legal challenges, including one that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ruled on late Wednesday. She denied requests to pause her order to wind down operations, after agreeing last week with environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe that the state and federal defendants didn’t follow federal law requiring an environmental review for the detention center in the middle of sensitive wetlands.

The Miami judge said the number of detainees was already dwindling, and the federal government’s “immigration enforcement goals will not be thwarted by a pause in operations.” That’s despite Department of Homeland Security lawyers saying the judge’s order would disrupt that enforcement.

When asked, the Department of Homeland Security wouldn’t say how many detainees remained and how many had been moved out since the judge’s temporary injunction last week.

“DHS is complying with this order and moving detainees to other facilities,” the department said Thursday in an emailed statement.

Environmental activist Jessica Namath, who has kept a nearly constant watch outside the facility’s gates, said Thursday that fellow observers had seen white tents hauled out but no signs of the removal of Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers or portable bathrooms.

“It definitely seems like they have been winding down operations,” Namath said.

Based on publicly available contract data, the Associated Press estimated the state allocated $50 million for the bathrooms. Detainees and advocates have described toilets that don’t flush, flooding floors with fecal waste, although officials dispute such descriptions.

The facility was already being emptied of detainees as of last week, according to an email exchange shared with the AP on Wednesday. The executive director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, Kevin Guthrie, said on Aug. 22 “we are probably going to be down to 0 individuals within a few days,” in a message to a rabbi about chaplaincy services.

Funding is central to the federal government’s arguments that Williams’ order should be overturned by an appellate court.

Homeland Security attorneys said in a court filing this week that federal environmental law doesn’t apply to a state like Florida, and the federal government isn’t responsible for the detention center since it hasn’t spent a cent to build or operate the facility, even though Florida is seeking some federal grant money to fund a portion of the detention center.

“No final federal funding decisions have been made,” the attorneys said.

Almost two dozen Republican-led states also urged the appellate court to overturn the order. The 22 states argued in another court filing that the judge overstepped her authority and that the federal environmental laws applied only to the federal agencies, not the state of Florida.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis ’ administration is preparing to open a second immigration detention facility dubbed “Deportation Depot” at a state prison in north Florida.

Civil rights groups filed a second lawsuit last month against the state and federal governments over practices at the Everglades facility, claiming detainees were denied access to the legal system.

A third lawsuit by civil rights groups on Aug. 22 described “severe problems” at the facility that were “previously unheard-of in the immigration system.”

Schneider and Payne write for the Associated Press.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A top Florida official says the controversial state-run immigration detention facility in the Everglades will likely be empty in a matter of days, even as Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration and the federal government fight a judge’s order to shutter the facility dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” by late October. That’s according to an email exchange shared with the Associated Press.

In a message sent to South Florida Rabbi Mario Rojzman on Aug. 22 related to providing chaplaincy services at the facility, Florida Division of Emergency Management Executive Director Kevin Guthrie said “we are probably going to be down to 0 individuals within a few days.” Rojzman, and the executive assistant who sent the original email to Guthrie, both confirmed the veracity of the messages to the AP.

A spokesperson for Guthrie, whose agency has overseen the construction and operation of the site, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

News that the last detainee at “Alligator Alcatraz” could leave the facility within days comes less than a week after a federal judge in Miami ordered the detention center to wind down operations, with the last detainee needing to be out within 60 days. The state of Florida appealed the decision, and the federal government asked U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to put her order on hold pending the appeal, saying that the Everglades facility’s thousands of beds were badly needed since detention facilities in Florida were overcrowded.

The environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe, whose lawsuit led to the judge’s ruling, opposed the request. They disputed that the Everglades facility was needed, especially as Florida plans to open a second immigration detention facility in north Florida that DeSantis has dubbed “Deportation Depot.” During a tour of the South Florida facility last week, U.S. Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) said he was told that only a fraction of the detention center’s capacity was in use, between 300 and 350 detainees.

Williams had not ruled on the stay request as of Wednesday.

The judge said in her order that she expected the population of the facility to decline within 60 days by transferring detainees to other facilities, and once that happened, fencing, lighting and generators should be removed. She wrote the state and federal defendants can’t bring anyone other than those who are already being detained at the facility onto the property.

Environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe had argued in their lawsuit that further construction and operations should be stopped until federal and state officials complied with federal environmental laws. Their lawsuit claimed the facility threatened environmentally sensitive wetlands that are home to protected plants and animals and would reverse billions of dollars spent over decades on environmental restoration.

The detention center was built rapidly two months ago at a lightly used, single-runway training airport in the middle of the rugged and remote Everglades. State officials have signed more than $245 million in contracts for building and operating the facility, which officially opened July 1.

Payne and Schneider write for the Associated Press. Schneider reported from Orlando, Fla.

COPENHAGEN, Denmark — Denmark’s foreign minister had the top U.S. diplomat in the country summoned for talks after the main national broadcaster reported Wednesday that at least three people with connections to President Trump have been carrying out covert influence operations in Greenland.

Trump has repeatedly said he seeks U.S. jurisdiction over Greenland, a vast, semi-autonomous territory of Denmark. He has not ruled out military force to take control of the mineral-rich, strategically located Arctic island.

Denmark, a NATO ally of the U.S., and Greenland have said the island is not for sale and condemned reports of the U.S. gathering intelligence there.

Danish public broadcaster DR reported Wednesday that government and security sources which it didn’t name, as well as unidentified sources in Greenland and the U.S., believe that at least three Americans with connections to Trump have been carrying out covert influence operations in the territory.

One of those people allegedly compiled a list of U.S.-friendly Greenlanders, collected names of people opposed to Trump and got locals to point out cases that could be used to cast Denmark in a bad light in American media. Two others have tried to nurture contacts with politicians, businesspeople and locals, according to the report.

An influence operation is an organized effort to shape how people in a society think in order to achieve certain political, military or other objectives.

DR said its story was based on information from a total of eight sources, who believe the goal is to weaken relations with Denmark from within Greenlandic society.

DR said it had been unable to clarify whether the Americans were working at their own initiative or on orders from someone else. It said it knows their names but chose not to publish them in order to protect its sources. The Associated Press could not independently confirm the report.

“We are aware that foreign actors continue to show an interest in Greenland and its position in the Kingdom of Denmark,” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said in a statement emailed by his ministry. “It is therefore not surprising if we experience outside attempts to influence the future of the Kingdom in the time ahead.”

“Any attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the Kingdom will of course be unacceptable,” Løkke Rasmussen said. “In that light, I have asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to summon the U.S. chargé d’affaires for a meeting at the Ministry.”

Cooperation between the governments of Denmark and Greenland “is close and based on mutual trust,” he added.

The U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen directed queries on the issue to Washington.

The Danish Security and Intelligence Service responded to a request for comment by saying it believes that “particularly in the current situation, Greenland is a target for influence campaigns of various kinds” that could aim to create divisions in the relationship between Denmark and Greenland.

It said it “assesses that this could be done by exploiting existing or fabricated disagreements, for example in connection with well-known individual cases, or by promoting or amplifying certain viewpoints in Greenland regarding the Kingdom, the United States, or other countries with a particular interest in Greenland.”

The service, known by its Danish acronym PET, said that in recent years it has “continuously strengthened” its efforts and presence in Greenland in cooperation with authorities there, and will continue to do so.

BALTIMORE — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Maryland’s entire federal bench over an order by the chief judge that stopped the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen granted a request by the judges to toss the case, saying to do otherwise “would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”

“In their wisdom, the Constitution’s framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign,” Cullen wrote. “That structure may occasionally engender clashes between two branches and encroachment by one branch on another’s authority. But mediating those disputes must occur in a manner that respects the Judiciary’s constitutional role.”

The White House had no immediate comment.

Cullen was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2020. He serves in the Western District of Virginia, but he was tapped to oversee the case because all 15 of Maryland’s federal judges are named as defendants, a highly unusual circumstance that reflects the Republican administration’s harsh response to judges who slow or stop its policies.

Cullen expressed skepticism of the lawsuit during a hearing in August. He questioned why it was necessary for the Trump administration to sue all the judges as a means of challenging the order.

Signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III, the order prevents the Trump administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in Maryland district court. It blocks their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after their habeas corpus petition is filed.

The order says it aims to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense.”

The Justice Department, which filed the suit in June, says the automatic pause violates a Supreme Court ruling and impedes the president’s authority to enforce immigration laws. The department has grown increasingly frustrated by rulings blocking Trump’s agenda, repeatedly accusing federal judges of improperly impeding his powers.

The lawsuit was an extraordinary legal maneuver, ratcheting up the administration’s fight with the federal judiciary.

Attorneys for the Maryland judges argued the lawsuit was intended to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while the Trump administration pursues a mass deportation agenda.

“The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,” attorney Paul Clement said during the hearing. “There really is no precursor for this suit”

Clement is a prominent conservative lawyer who served as solicitor general under Republican President George W. Bush. He listed several other avenues the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as filing an appeal in an individual habeas case.

Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges said the government was simply seeking relief from a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement.

“The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,” she said.

In an amended order pausing deportations, Russell said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.” Habeas petitions allow people to challenge their detention by the government.

Attorneys for the Trump administration accused the Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, writing in court documents that “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.”

Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who found the Trump administration in March illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador — a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump’s immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was held in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured.

Trump has railed against unfavorable judicial rulings, and in one case called for the impeachment of a federal judge in Washington who ordered planeloads of deported immigrants to be turned around. In July, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against the judge.

Skene writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 26 (UPI) — A man has been arrested near the White House for setting an American flag on fire shortly after President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Justice Department to prosecute acts of flag “desecration.”

The Secret Service confirmed the arrest in a statement to Newsweek, stating the suspect was detained in Lafayette Park for “igniting an object” at about 6:15 p.m. EDT Monday.

The suspect was turned over to U.S. Park Police, which told NBC News that the person had violated a statute that bans fires in public parks.

In a video of the incident published on social media by The Bulwark news organization, the suspect identified himself as a 20-year combat veteran who said he was burning the flag “as a protest to that illegal fascist president that sits in that House.”

The arrest came hours after Trump signed an executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to “prioritize” enforcing the nation’s criminal and civil law “against acts of American flag desecration.”

The order does not explicitly make American flag burning illegal, which the Supreme Court has ruled is protected by the Constitution, but says that burning “this representation of America may incite violence and riot.”

During the signing ceremony in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump claimed American flags are being burned “all over the country.”

He also mentioned the 5-4 Supreme Court decision of 1989 that found flag burning is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment, but seemingly disregarded it, stating people “go crazy” when a flag is burned.

“If you have hundreds of people, they go crazy. You can do other things. You can burn this piece of paper,” he said, gesturing toward a piece of paper on his desk.

“But when you burn the American flag, it incites riots at levels that we’ve never seen before. People go crazy in both ways. There are some that are going crazy for doing it. There are others that are angry, angry about them doing it.”

Trump signed the executive order as some 2,000 National Guardsmen have been deployed to Washington, D.C.

THIS is the shocking moment a Deliveroo rider pretends to drop off a takeaway — only to swipe it back seconds later after being caught on camera.

The sham delivery was filmed in Bristol, where stunned homeowner Daniel Ali, 19, watched the bizarre scam unfold on his doorbell camera on August 18.

5

5

5

The footage shows the courier placing the meal on the doormat and snapping a photo for “proof”, before stuffing it back in his bag and cycling away.

Ali said: “It was a crazy experience,” after sharing the footage on TikTok, where it quickly racked up thousands of views.

The stunned customer later revealed the rider got in touch after the footage blew up online, apologising and begging for the viral video to be taken down.

Viewers were left fuming with one saying: “Absolutely disgusting, he should be banned.”

Another raged: “This is theft, plain and simple.”

Furious social media users warned the stunt could leave vulnerable people hungry, with some relying on deliveries for their only hot meal of the day.

Calls mounted for Deliveroo to act fast.

The firm has since refunded the cost of the food, and Ali has agreed to remove the video.

A Deliveroo spokesperson told Bristol World said: “Deliveroo is committed to ensuring the highest standards of behaviour and we take customer experience extremely seriously.

“We offboarded the rider and issued a refund to the customer after they alerted us to this incident.”

5

5

MIAMI — A federal judge has put a stop to further expansion of the immigration detention center built in the Florida Everglades and dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz, ordering that its operations wind down within two months.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami wrote in her 82-page order late Thursday that Florida officials never sufficiently explained why an immigration detention center needed to be located in the middle of sensitive wetlands cherished by environmentalists and outdoors people.

She also said that state and federal authorities never undertook an environmental review as required by federal law before Florida officials hastily built the detention camp that they championed as a model for President Trump’s immigration policies. That failure adversely affected the “recreational, conservational, and aesthetic interests” of the environmental groups and Miccosukee Tribe, which brought the lawsuit, she said.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis on Friday reacted to the ruling, saying he would not be deterred by “an activist judge.”

“We knew this would be something that would likely happen,” DeSantis said at a news conference in Panama City. “We will respond accordingly. You either have a country or you don’t.”

Here’s what to know about the situation and what might come next:

What did the judge say?

Williams said she expected the population at the facility to drop within 60 days by transferring detainees to other facilities. Once that happens, fencing, lighting, gas, waste, generators and other equipment should be removed from the site. No additional detainees can be sent to the facility, and noadditional lighting, fencing, paving, buildings or tents can be added to the camp. The only repairs that can be made to the existing facility are for safety purposes. However, the judge allowed for the existing dormitories and housing to stay in place as long as they are maintained to prevent deterioration or damage.

Here’s where detainees might end up

During court hearings, lawyers said at one point there were fewer than 1,000 detainees at the facility, which state officials had planned to hold up to 3,000 people. Although the detainees could be sent to other facilities out of state, Florida has other immigration detention centers including the Krome North Processing Center in Miami, the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach and the Baker County Detention Center managed by the local sheriff’s office. Earlier this month, DeSantis announced plans for a second state-initiated immigration detention facility dubbed “Deportation Depot” at a state prison about 43 miles (69 kilometers) west of downtown Jacksonville. State officials say it is expected to hold 1,300 immigration detention beds, though that capacity could be expanded to 2,000 beds.

How does this decision impact the other “Alligator Alcatraz” lawsuit?

Civil rights lawyers had filed a second lawsuit over practices at “Alligator Alcatraz,” claiming that detainees weren’t able to meet with their attorneys privately and were denied access to immigration courts. Another federal judge in Miami dismissed part of the lawsuit earlier this week after the Trump administration designated the Krome North Processing Center as the court for their cases to be heard. The judge moved the remaining counts of the case from Florida’s southern district to the middle district. Eunice Cho, the lead attorney for the detainees, said Friday that the decision in the environmental lawsuit won’t have an impact on the civil rights case since there could be detainees at the facility for the next two months.

“Our case addresses the lack of access to counsel for people detained at Alligator Alcatraz, and there are still people detained there,” Cho said.

Status of the hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts

No one has said publicly what will happen to the hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts involved in the facility. DeSantis’ administration in July signed contracts with private vendors to pay at least $245 million to set up and run the center, according to a public database. That amount — to be fronted by Florida taxpayers — was in line with the $450 million a year officials have estimated the facility was going to cost. The governor’s office and the Florida Division of Emergency Management on Friday didn’t respond to questions about whether Florida taxpayers would still be on the hook for the contracts if the facility is shuttered.

Is this a final decision?

No. This case will continue to be litigated. The state of Florida filed a notice of appeal Thursday night, shortly after the ruling was issued. As its name suggests, a preliminary injunction is only an initial action taken by a judge to prevent harm while a lawsuit makes its way through the court process and when it appears that one side has a good chance of succeeding based on the merits of the case.

Schneider and Anderson write for the Associated Press.