President Ronald Reagan appointed Mark Wolf to be a U.S. district judge in 1985. Four decades later, he announced his resignation from the bench in an article in the Atlantic.

Federal judges adhere to strict rules regarding what they can say in public. To avoid an appearance of bias, they rarely speak publicly at all – and refrain from commenting on politics and political leaders. Instead, they speak through their written opinions on matters of fact and law.

But in the face of what he calls the Trump administration’s “assault on the rule of law,” Mr. Wolf wrote that he could “no longer … bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom.”

Why We Wrote This

It’s rare for a federal judge to resign over the actions of a president. Mark Wolf, a district court judge in Massachusetts appointed by President Ronald Reagan, made that choice.

His decision has faced some criticism. Mr. Wolf “is a disgrace to the federal judiciary,” wrote Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, a group that advocates confirming conservative judges to the federal courts, in a Fox News commentary.

Mr. Wolf, who served as a district court judge in Massachusetts and is now a lawyer at Todd & Weld in Boston, spoke with the Monitor recently. He discussed his decision to resign from the bench, why he believes President Donald Trump is a threat to the rule of law, and how he thinks the job of a judge is often misunderstood. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What have you been up to since you left the bench a few months ago?

I’m trying to reach the American people, at least some of them, because I have a profound concern that the president feels he can – and maybe he can – ignore court orders with impunity.

In [July 1974], about a month or two after I joined the Justice Department, the Supreme Court ordered President [Richard] Nixon to turn over the [Watergate] tapes. ... He could have refused, he could have destroyed the tapes, but he knew the American people at that time wouldn’t tolerate disobedience and he would be impeached and removed from office. So, he turned over the tapes and resigned. I’m not sure where the American people are today, but when district judges, particularly, rule against the president and explain it in their decisions, he has the ultimate bully pulpit. He’s the president of the United States, he’s got social media. He says those judges are crooked and they should be impeached.

If the American people don’t have confidence in the impartiality, the integrity of judicial decisions, and don’t insist that the president obey court orders, then there are no limits on the president. Courts [and] judges don’t have the power to really enforce their orders themselves. So, one of the things I want to do is take advantage of the opportunities that have been offered to me to advocate for the judges and try to encourage people to insist that the president obey court orders. He says he’s obeying all of the orders, [but] I think close studies by the Washington Post said that he or his administration were not obeying, or properly obeying, about a third of the court orders against them, and that’s a very problematic thing.

I want to talk to people across the political spectrum, but also listen to them. ... I would like to try to find some way to have civil discussion among people who are not inclined to agree.

Before you became a judge you worked at the Department of Justice, and you joined near the end of the Watergate scandal. Can you talk about that time in your career?

Everybody counseled me not to go to the Department of Justice. They said, ‘You’re going to be stigmatized for the rest of your life’ for having worked in this disreputable Department of Justice. I thought, ‘I’m 27 years old, they needed more honest lawyers, I would go and straighten out the president.’

[Nixon] resigned in early August. As a result, I was in the Justice Department when Gerald Ford became president, and he recruited Edward Levi, the president of the University of Chicago to be attorney general in an effort to restore confidence in the department.

[Levi] had me on his personal staff. And so, for those next two years, I worked for a person who personified what he said in his induction remarks. He said: ‘Nothing can more weaken the quality of life or more imperil the realization of the goals we all hold dear than our failure to make clear by word and deed that our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose.’

I saw him make some difficult decisions. And that had a very profound effect on me.

Can you share an example?

There was an investigation of whether President Ford took illegal campaign contributions when he was in the House of Representatives.

Attorney General Levi was very skeptical about whether those charges would prove to be meritorious. And this was in 1976, so an election was coming up in November, and Watergate was barely history. So, while he was skeptical about whether these allegations would prove to be meritorious, he felt that because there was so much public skepticism about whether the Department of Justice could be trusted to investigate the president, he needed to appoint a special prosecutor to reassure the American people. [The special prosecutor] found that there was essentially no evidence to support these allegations.

But it was an issue in the election, and Ford lost. And there were Republicans who blamed Levi for costing Ford the election. That was an example of doing something that would foreseeably be adverse to the president’s political interests, but he felt that was his duty.

How did your time at DOJ then prepare you for being a judge?

There was an intermediate step. When Jimmy Carter won the [1976] election, I lost my [Justice Department] job. So, I came back to Boston to practice law. Years later, a state commission found that corruption was a way of life in public contracting at the state level in Massachusetts, in Democratic and Republican administrations, And there were also lots of allegations of corruption in the administration of the long-serving mayor of Boston. So, after Ronald Reagan was elected, there were calls for a nonpolitical U.S. attorney for Massachusetts.

What do you think ‘non-political U.S. attorney’ meant at that time?

I was hired as the deputy U.S. attorney. And we were the only one of the 94 U.S. attorney’s offices to have corruption as our highest priority. And I said, the hiring will be nonpartisan, and will be based on merit. Doing that, we built a terrific office.

I made a distinction between politics and partisanship. The president gets elected, and he’s got a right to say to the attorney general: ‘I want you to devote more resources, say, to drug enforcement or immigration enforcement and less to civil rights.’ That’s setting policy. That’s legitimate.

But you have to have established standards and procedures that are applied neutrally, uniformly, without fear or favor, without respect to the identity of who is the subject of the investigation or prosecution. You can’t make decisions based on partisan considerations – ‘This one’s a Republican, so we won’t prosecute him’ – or personal considerations – ‘Oh, this is somebody who’s donated a lot of money to my campaign, or maybe bought a lot of my cryptocurrency.’

That’s what nonpartisanship in the administration of justice is, and it’s exactly what we don’t have now.

Are those qualities you made sure to apply over those decades on the bench?

That’s the oath you take as a district judge, to administer justice impartially. It’s the fundamental principle. And, in fact, the goal isn’t to have an independent judiciary – an independent judiciary could be an unaccountable judiciary. It’s to have an impartial judiciary. I had life tenure because it would permit me to make unpopular decisions without risking my job. It’s instrumental. You decide the case based on the facts that are derived from the evidence, and based on law.

I’ve worked with embattled judges all over the world, judges who were in prison because they were striving to make their judiciaries, their judges, more expert, more independent, more impartial. I always came back from those trips with a heightened appreciation for the opportunity to be an impartial judge in the United States and a heightened sense of responsibility to do the job right, because these people were taking enormous risks.

These days, whenever we hear about a judge we also hear the name of the president who nominated them. Did being a Reagan appointee mean anything at the time?

That wasn’t the case when I was appointed [and] maybe for the first 15 years, maybe until Bush v. Gore in 2000. For a number of years, if I made a decision they would say, ‘Judge Mark Wolf decided this.’ And then at some point it became, ‘Judge Mark Wolf, appointed by Ronald Reagan.’ Sometimes, now, I’m characterized as a conservative judge. I’ve been criticized for not being a conservative. And I don’t think it’s accurate to consider me a conservative or a liberal judge, a Republican judge or a Democratic judge. I was an impartial judge. And I believe that if you’re an impartial judge, the same party’s not going to win every time.

Is there a way you think judges can better communicate that to the public?

The code of conduct for judges says that judges should not write or say anything or do anything that would cause a reasonable person to question their impartiality. That doesn’t mean you can’t say or write anything, and I think actually many judges may be too restrained in feeling they can’t publish an opinion piece or something like that.

Right now, it’s understandable that they would be [more] restrained, because you get attacked. It’s just very risky. It’s not wise. So it’s hard to communicate that way.

What has been my experience – but I’m concerned that it won’t continue to be judges’ experience – is that the organized bar would advocate for judges. The American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the local chapters of the Federal Bar Association, lawyers [there] would advocate for judges on principled issues.

How would you compare the DOJ today with the DOJ you worked in?

They couldn’t be more different. It’s essentially why I resigned. Attorney General Levi administered, and helped establish – I think for a long time – a Department of Justice which did not operate as an instrument of partisan purpose. The [partisan] things that Richard Nixon did with regard to the Department of Justice, periodically and secretly – because he knew they were illegal or improper – President Trump does repeatedly, and overtly.

Threats against judges have increased sharply in recent years. Is there more that could be being done to protect judges?

The officials responsible for protecting judges are the United States marshals. They’re in the Department of Justice, they’re not in the judiciary.

But there’s not enough marshals to provide protection given there’s a higher number of threats than there have ever been, death threats than there have ever been. And given the fact that the Department of Justice [has] sometimes reiterated or amplified the president’s criticism of judges. ... You know that the Department of Justice won’t be dedicated to protecting those judges. It’s a real problem.

Fifty years ago, then-Attorney General Edward Levi issued a warning about the perils of political interference in law enforcement.

“Popular governments are prone to cycles,” he said in 1976. “We are in such a period of cyclical reaction today, justifying what we do now as a kind of getting even with the events of prior years.”

Levi was speaking from experience. He became the attorney general in the aftermath of Watergate, when public trust in government had cratered, and he is often credited with having restored the Justice Department’s credibility as a nonpartisan law enforcement agency.

Why We Wrote This

Reforms following Watergate strengthened the Justice Department’s independence and restored public confidence. Now, amid the Trump administration’s pressure on DOJ norms, polls show that half of Americans doubt that federal law enforcement is fair and impartial.

Now, the DOJ appears to be experiencing another “cyclical reaction.”

The agency has prosecuted two of President Donald Trump’s political adversaries: the New York attorney general and a former FBI director. As Mr. Trump has pressured the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, the Justice Department has launched investigations into the Fed chair and another governor at the central bank. One of Mr. Trump’s first acts upon taking office last year was to pardon those convicted in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, whom he called political prisoners. His administration subsequently purged the DOJ and the FBI of career employees who had worked on those prosecutions.

Between his first and second terms, Mr. Trump faced four separate criminal prosecutions, including two initiated by the Biden administration’s Justice Department. Many Republicans criticized those prosecutions as politically motivated. When he returned to the White House, Mr. Trump issued an executive order that denounced the Biden administration for engaging in “a systematic campaign against its perceived political opponents.”

Ever since, however, his administration has appeared to be carrying out its own campaign of weaponized justice that’s ramped up notably in recent months, according to interviews with former Justice Department prosecutors and legal scholars.

One result: Polls show half the country doubts whether federal law enforcement is fair and impartial.

“The Justice Department has always been a standard bearer for professionalism and integrity and ethics,” says Kami Chavis, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches at William & Mary Law School. “We have really held those attorneys in the highest esteem, and now that is all being thrown into question.”

Testing the traditional firewall

Every president enters office with the prerogative to set new priorities for the Justice Department. Mr. Trump campaigned to do just that, promising to focus on stricter immigration enforcement and crack down on fentanyl trafficking, among other things. But he promised more: to turn the political “lawfare” he claims Democrats had waged against him and his supporters back against those aggressors.

“I am your retribution,” he pledged in a 2023 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, held just outside Washington.

While the DOJ is equipped to shift enforcement priorities from administration to administration, it is designed to resist political influence. The department’s key leaders – such as the attorney general and the U.S. attorneys leading regional offices – are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Yet those leaders oversee more than 10,000 career prosecutors and civil lawyers who expect to work under presidents from both parties.

There are no laws or constitutional requirements that the Justice Department operate independently from the rest of the executive branch. Instead, the firewall between the White House and Justice has been held together by intangibles such as norms, policies, and legal ethics.

This Trump administration has tested that firewall in unprecedented ways.

Even before Mr. Trump returned to office, some of his allies were laying plans for reforms to the Justice Department. Project 2025, the conservative policymaking blueprint for the administration, stated that failing to reform the agency – including weeding out “radical Left” employees and ending “viewpoint-based enforcement” – would “guarantee the failure of that conservative Administration’s agenda.”

But reform efforts have clashed with long-standing DOJ norms and policies, fueling perceptions that the department is still being used as a political weapon.

Reports suggest that dozens of federal prosecutors have either resigned or been fired for refusing to file charges that aren’t supported by probable cause, a violation of professional conduct rules. Other reports suggest that White House officials – including Mr. Trump himself – have directly discussed investigations with DOJ employees, a violation of the department’s contacts policy.

Polling from the past year shows a decline in public confidence in the Justice Department. While Republicans currently have more trust in the agency – a 180-degree reversal from the Biden years – that support is also starting to waver.

An August survey from the Pew Research Center found that fewer than 4 in 10 Americans had a favorable view of the department, compared with 51% of Republicans. Another Pew poll, conducted last month, found that only 42% of Republicans say they are confident Mr. Trump is acting ethically in office, a 13-point decline from the start of his term a year ago.

“A chain of command”

Chad Mizelle, a close ally of Trump officials who has worked in both Trump administrations, posted a hiring announcement on X last weekend. The Justice Department, he wrote, is interested in hiring “good prosecutors” who “support President Trump and [his] anti-crime agenda.”

The post quickly drew attention, including from Ed Whelan, a conservative lawyer with experience at the department, who commented that “it would be good to know if DOJ is taking the position that support for the president is a lawful criterion in hiring [assistant U.S. attorneys].”

Yet this job post is consistent with how Mr. Trump’s Justice Department appointees believe the department should operate: as an agency subject to direct presidential control like any other part of the executive branch.

In a memo issued shortly after taking office, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote that DOJ attorneys must “zealously defend the interests of the United States.” Those interests, she added, “are set by the Nation’s Chief Executive.”

Federal prosecutors “are not independent, they don’t work for themselves,” says Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, a group that advocates confirming conservative judges to the federal courts. “They work in a chain of command that reports to the president, who is elected by Americans.”

But that kind of apparent loyalty test for an agency whose job is to protect all Americans’ constitutional freedoms could set the country “down a very dangerous path,” says Jeffrey Cohen, a former Justice Department prosecutor who now teaches at Boston College Law School.

The incentives to file trumped-up charges to please the president would be rife in such a scenario.

If the president “can tell the attorney general the people he or she wants prosecuted ... that seems very different from the president setting priorities,” Mr. Cohen adds.

Political prosecutions, unusual contacts

There are suggestions that the Justice Department has already been trying to carry out the president’s personal wishes.

Former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James – both longtime Trump adversaries – faced criminal charges. Both had their cases dismissed last year after a judge ruled that the interim U.S. attorney who filed the charges, Lindsey Halligan, had been appointed unlawfully.

Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve board of governors, is under criminal investigation for mortgage fraud. She has yet to be formally charged. Jerome Powell, the Fed chair, announced on Jan. 11 that he is now under DOJ investigation for cost overruns on renovations to historic Fed buildings.

It’s unclear whether Mr. Trump personally pressured the Justice Department to pursue these cases behind the scenes. But the president’s public statements alone can be seen as exerting unusual influence. He has been highly critical of Mr. Powell for months, while publicly pushing for the central bank to lower interest rates more aggressively to help stimulate the economy.

In the cases of Mr. Comey and Ms. James, Mr. Trump mentioned them by name in a social media post last fall. “We can’t delay any longer,” he wrote. “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!” The post, which began with “Pam,” might have been intended as a private message to Ms. Bondi.

Two other foes – John Bolton, a former Trump national security adviser, and John Brennan, a former CIA director – are also in the Justice Department’s crosshairs. Mr. Bolton is under indictment for mishandling classified documents, while Mr. Brennan is being investigated for making false statements to Congress.

Mass resignations

Waves of mass resignations have also marked a year of turbulence at the DOJ.

Seven prosecutors in the department’s vaunted Manhattan office and in its Public Integrity Unit quit instead of signing on to the motion to dismiss bribery and fraud charges against Eric Adams, then the mayor of New York City. The dismissal came as the Trump administration sought the city’s cooperation with its immigration enforcement campaign.

“Our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way,” wrote one prosecutor in his resignation letter.

Between January and June last year, nine DOJ civil rights lawyers resigned after working on investigations into antisemitism on University of California campuses. Senior department officials, they claimed, pressured them to bring charges despite having insufficient evidence.

Ms. Halligan ended up leading the Comey and James cases because the man she replaced, Erik Siebert, the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, had resigned under pressure after going months without filing charges against Ms. James.

And in recent weeks, at least 14 federal prosecutors in Minnesota have reportedly resigned amid investigations into the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis. Some of the prosecutors resigned in protest of a DOJ directive to investigate Ms. Good’s partner. (When asked to comment on the resignations, a department spokesperson referred to Ms. Bondi’s “zealous advocacy” memo.)

Credibility and weaponization

Some Republicans in Congress have begun raising concerns about the Justice Department’s conduct. The Powell investigation, specifically, has drawn condemnation.

“It is now the independence and credibility of the Department of Justice that are in question,” said Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, in a Jan. 11 statement.

“If the Department of Justice believes an investigation into Chair Powell is warranted based on project cost overruns – which are not unusual – then Congress needs to investigate the Department of Justice,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska on Jan. 12.

The Trump administration, however, is reportedly looking to increase the workload of the Weaponization Working Group, which Ms. Bondi formed last year to investigate alleged political prosecutions carried out by the DOJ during the Biden administration. The department recently removed Ed Martin – a Trump ally and former interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia – from leading the working group, in part because an investigation found he had leaked grand jury materials related to a mortgage fraud prosecution of another Trump foe, Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California.

The working group has not been involved in most cases against Mr. Trump’s adversaries. Still, the Justice Department’s work so far is illustrating just how fragile the agency’s independence from politics has always been, says Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches at Georgetown University Law Center.

“There’s nothing per se that’s illegal about Trump ordering criminal investigations or prosecutions of people he doesn’t like,” he adds. “That’s only been the norm; it hasn’t been a formal law.”

As the Trump administration weighs a potential military strike against Iran, Pentagon planners are grappling with a diminished supply of missile interceptors needed to protect U.S. troops and allies from the counterattack that Tehran has promised to unleash in response.

Defending U.S. forces as well as Israel after America’s June attack on Iranian nuclear sites has “severely affected” the Pentagon’s stockpiles of these weapons, analysts say. So, too, has the war in Ukraine. All of this comes in the same week that a key nuclear arms control treaty with Russia is expiring.

Matters of missile defense gained more urgency with reports Wednesday that talks scheduled for Friday in Oman between the United States and Iran were being scrapped. They are back on, but the precarious nature of the negotiations set off more speculation about an impending U.S. military action.

Why We Wrote This

The Pentagon is burning through its missile interceptors at an unsustainable rate, leaving stockpiles low. An Iranian counterattack would deepen the dent. With no quick fix, the United States is working to resupply weapons.

“These are scarce resources,” Tom Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank, said during a briefing last month. The U.S. has been firing “a lot of missile defense interceptors lately,” he added, raising questions: “Are we running out? And what are we going to do to produce more of them?”

If the U.S. supply of defense weapons is being depleted, so is Iran’s missile arsenal. But Tehran still has thousands of weapons capable of reaching U.S. ships and bases in the region, analysts say. Militias sympathetic to the regime have pledged to join in any counterattack.

And while Tehran has been careful not to escalate in the past – Iran’s counterstrike on U.S. forces at Al Udeid base in Qatar last summer came with advance warning – a potential U.S. military operation this time could spark the regime to launch an all-or-nothing bid to retain its grip on power.

In what some observers say is a turning point in its willingness to abandon any pretense of peace or reform in favor of survival, Tehran last month violently suppressed one of the most serious waves of domestic unrest it has faced since the regime’s founding in 1979, killing thousands of people.

“The message is they’ve got to show humanity,” President Donald Trump said of the regime on Jan. 13 as the crackdown began.

U.S. officials are also demanding nuclear concessions from Iran, a nation with which it has had no formal diplomatic ties since 1980. Mr. Trump has cited nuclear weapons proliferation as a top concern – one brought into sharp relief this week as America’s landmark nuclear arms control agreement with Russia, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), expires Thursday.

Rattling sabers, limiting policy possibilities

The recent arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East is ratcheting up pressure on Tehran and raising the potential for escalation. A U.S. fighter jet shot down an Iranian drone Tuesday when it “unnecessarily maneuvered” in the ship’s direction, a statement from U.S. Central Command said.

“Any unsafe and unprofessional behavior near U.S. forces, regional partners, or commercial vessels increases risks of collision, escalation, and destabilization,” the command warned.

The aircraft carrier and other U.S. assets in the region provide the Trump administration with options for military force. The three U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers accompanying the USS Abraham Lincoln also carry air defenses and dozens of missiles.

Yet as U.S. officials make diplomatic moves in the days to come, “They will have to consider the constraints and limits on the number of [U.S.] interceptors and air and missile defense assets,” says Wes Rumbaugh, a fellow with CSIS’ Missile Defense Project.

As it stands now, he adds, those calculations amount to a “meaningful constraint on their ability to achieve foreign policy goals.”

Taking stock of diminished stocks

When Iran fired more than 180 ballistic missiles at Israel in October 2024, some defense analysts estimated that in helping defend its ally against the barrage, the U.S. military used a one-year supply of its missile defense interceptors in a single day.

U.S. officials began warning that supplies were running low.

Shortly after taking office, the Trump administration reportedly reviewed the nation’s depleted stocks of Patriot missiles with an eye toward increasing production.

Then last June, the U.S. military fired some 150 interceptor missiles from its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, systems, during Israel’s 12-day war with Tehran. This single operation depleted roughly 25% of the U.S. military’s total THAAD interceptor stockpile, analysts say.

THAAD systems are a precious resource for the Pentagon – the Army operates only eight THAAD batteries in its arsenal. Each battery includes truck-mounted launchers to intercept incoming missiles at high altitudes and specializes in taking out short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. The challenge of replacing these interceptors is significant, as production has averaged only a dozen new missiles a year.

Just days after the U.S. used 30 Patriot missiles to intercept Iranian missiles shot at Al Udeid base in Qatar, President Trump, speaking at a NATO summit, noted that while he was aware that Ukraine wanted “antimissile missiles,” as he called them, “they’re very hard to get. We need them, too.”

The Trump administration then briefly froze shipments of Patriot weapons to Ukraine. There were concerns that the U.S. was running low on supplies, officials said, with only a quarter of the needed Patriot missile interceptors in its stockpile.

By some estimates, Europe has only about 5% of the air defense systems it needs to protect its eastern border from a war with Moscow. This gap in defenses was laid bare in September, analysts say, when Russian drones passed more than 100 miles into Polish airspace. Europe currently owns about 30 U.S.-made Patriot weapons.

How to rebuild defense stockpiles

In response to concerns that current U.S. stockpiles are low, efforts are now underway to accelerate America’s production of missile defense interceptors.

The Army’s 2025 budget request included a 77% increase in air and missile defense capabilities compared with the previous year.

The Pentagon also created a new Munitions Acceleration Council last year to help eliminate bottlenecks in U.S. weapons production. That council is being spearheaded by Deputy Secretary of Defense Steve Feinberg, who is reportedly holding weekly calls with defense contractors to push for increased capacity.

To this end, last month, the Defense Department announced two big deals with defense contractor Lockheed Martin to more than triple production of Patriot missile interceptors from some 600 to 2,000 per year and grow THAAD interceptor production from 96 to 400 missiles annually.

“The Trump administration has obviously made ramping up munitions production, missile defense munitions production a pretty high priority,” Mr. Rumbaugh of CSIS says.

For now, Gen. James Mingus, the vice chief of staff of the Army, pointed out in a discussion last July that the number of Patriot air defense battalions deployed to the Middle East was modest.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

That number is one. And the lone defense system has been deployed there “for close to 500 days,” said General Mingus, the second-highest-ranking officer in the U.S. Army.

It is the element within the military force, he added, that remains “our most stressed.”

The House voted on Tuesday to end a brief partial government shutdown, but Congress immediately faces another challenge: negotiating immigration enforcement reforms pushed by Democrats before funding for the Department of Homeland Security runs out in 10 days.

After federal immigration agents fatally shot Alex Pretti, a Minneapolis nurse, as he filmed them on Jan. 24, Senate Democrats refused to pass an annual DHS funding bill without significant changes to rein in the agency and hold it more accountable to the public. They want to ban federal agents from wearing face masks, require visible identification for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol law enforcement (both housed under DHS), and tighten warrant requirements.

Many of their demands are widely unpopular among Republicans, who say revealing law enforcement members’ identities puts them at risk.

Why We Wrote This

Following the shooting deaths of two people during protests in Minneapolis, Democrats are targeting Department of Homeland Security funding as they try to put new restrictions on the agency’s immigration enforcement efforts. Republicans in Congress are pushing back.

Five government funding bills were passed on Tuesday, but Congress approved only 10 days of funding for DHS while it negotiates Democrats’ demands. President Donald Trump supported the deal. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, reportedly said the two sides are so far apart that a deal by the Feb. 13 deadline was an “impossibility.”

In interviews with the Monitor, Republicans and Democrats alike underscored the difficulty of the 10-day timeline. Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas said it would be “very difficult” to draft and translate a bill into legal language by Feb. 13. Asked whether Congress could pull off passing a bill by then, Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota said simply, “I doubt it.”

What would a shutdown affect?

If the two chambers of Congress can’t finalize a bill by the deadline, some parts of DHS will shutter all but essential operations unless Congress passes another stopgap funding bill that acts as a bridge to keep federal agencies operational while lawmakers negotiate longer-term budget agreements. Such a shutdown could affect agencies including the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Congress had appropriated $10 billion for ICE in the original DHS bill. Even if that is delayed or blocked, ICE already received an extra $75 billion over four years in the Republicans’ tax-and-spending bill last year. Immigration enforcement operations could continue, using that funding.

Several Democrats said they would not vote for even temporary DHS funding without reforms.

“We need to hold our line right now,” said Democratic Rep. Brittany Pettersen of Colorado. “It is all hands on deck.”

Republican and Democratic demands

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer last week laid out three Democratic demands as conditions for funding DHS: prohibiting roving immigration enforcement patrols and blocking ICE officers from entering people’s homes without a judicial warrant; banning masks and requiring video cameras and visible identification for ICE officers and Border Patrol agents; and adopting a universal code of conduct for all federal law enforcement officers.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, endorsed those proposals and added another: Banning the deportation of U.S. citizens picked up in Mr. Trump’s immigration enforcement surge.

Rep. John Larson of Connecticut was among several Democrats who said that they support their party’s conditions – especially the ban on masks worn by agents and the tightening of restrictions on warrants.

“They ought to have a warrant. They don’t need masks. They ought to identify themselves and make sure that they’re coordinating with the states,” Mr. Larson said. “Three simple things.”

Some lawmakers appear to have additional priorities. Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey says DHS is violating due process by tracking Americans’ phones and collecting private data as part of the immigration enforcement surge.

“They won’t get my vote … as long as they’re violating Americans’ rights in the ways that they are,” he said when asked whether those issues needed to be addressed before he would support a new DHS bill.

Administrative vs. judicial warrants

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana has flatly rejected new warrant restrictions or a mask ban. Others in his party agree. Republicans say officers can legally rely on an immigration judge’s administrative warrant to enter someone’s home.

“Judicial warrants versus administrative warrants ... that will never happen,” Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska said when asked whether any Democratic proposals were nonstarters for him.

Meanwhile, Republicans are issuing their own demands. Speaker Johnson said on Monday that he wanted negotiations to include restrictions on sanctuary cities. This term lacks a legal definition but generally refers to cities that limit cooperation with federal authorities on immigration.

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson told Punchbowl News that, “if Democrats get anything, we have to demand all kinds of things.”

He listed restrictions on sanctuary cities as well as passage of the SAVE America Act, a voter-ID bill Republicans are pushing that has garnered strong Democratic opposition.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Other Republicans are waiting on the White House to weigh in.

“I’d love to see some measures in the bill about sanctuary cities,’’ said Rep. Nathaniel Moran of Texas. “But we’ll see where the president lands on it.”

The House voted on Tuesday to end a brief partial government shutdown, but Congress immediately faces another challenge: negotiating immigration enforcement reforms pushed by Democrats before funding for the Department of Homeland Security runs out in 10 days.

After federal immigration agents fatally shot Alex Pretti, a Minneapolis nurse, as he filmed them on Jan. 24, Senate Democrats refused to pass an annual DHS funding bill without significant changes to rein in the agency and hold it more accountable to the public. They want to ban federal agents from wearing face masks, require visible identification for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol law enforcement (both housed under DHS), and tighten warrant requirements.

Many of their demands are widely unpopular among Republicans, who say revealing law enforcement members’ identities puts them at risk.

Why We Wrote This

Following the shooting deaths of two people during protests in Minneapolis, Democrats are targeting Department of Homeland Security funding as they try to put new restrictions on the agency’s immigration enforcement efforts. Republicans in Congress are pushing back.

Five government funding bills were passed on Tuesday, but Congress approved only 10 days of funding for DHS while it negotiates Democrats’ demands. President Donald Trump supported the deal. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, reportedly said the two sides are so far apart that a deal by the Feb. 13 deadline was an “impossibility.”

In interviews with the Monitor, Republicans and Democrats alike underscored the difficulty of the 10-day timeline. Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas said it would be “very difficult” to draft and translate a bill into legal language by Feb. 13. Asked whether Congress could pull off passing a bill by then, Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota said simply, “I doubt it.”

What would a shutdown affect?

If the two chambers of Congress can’t finalize a bill by the deadline, some parts of DHS will shutter all but essential operations unless Congress passes another stopgap funding bill that acts as a bridge to keep federal agencies operational while lawmakers negotiate longer-term budget agreements. Such a shutdown could affect agencies including the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Congress had appropriated $10 billion for ICE in the original DHS bill. Even if that is delayed or blocked, ICE already received an extra $75 billion over four years in the Republicans’ tax-and-spending bill last year. Immigration enforcement operations could continue, using that funding.

Several Democrats said they would not vote for even temporary DHS funding without reforms.

“We need to hold our line right now,” said Democratic Rep. Brittany Pettersen of Colorado. “It is all hands on deck.”

Republican and Democratic demands

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer last week laid out three Democratic demands as conditions for funding DHS: prohibiting roving immigration enforcement patrols and blocking ICE officers from entering people’s homes without a judicial warrant; banning masks and requiring video cameras and visible identification for ICE officers and Border Patrol agents; and adopting a universal code of conduct for all federal law enforcement officers.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, endorsed those proposals and added another: Banning the deportation of U.S. citizens picked up in Mr. Trump’s immigration enforcement surge.

Rep. John Larson of Connecticut was among several Democrats who said that they support their party’s conditions – especially the ban on masks worn by agents and the tightening of restrictions on warrants.

“They ought to have a warrant. They don’t need masks. They ought to identify themselves and make sure that they’re coordinating with the states,” Mr. Larson said. “Three simple things.”

Some lawmakers appear to have additional priorities. Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey says DHS is violating due process by tracking Americans’ phones and collecting private data as part of the immigration enforcement surge.

“They won’t get my vote … as long as they’re violating Americans’ rights in the ways that they are,” he said when asked whether those issues needed to be addressed before he would support a new DHS bill.

Administrative vs. judicial warrants

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana has flatly rejected new warrant restrictions or a mask ban. Others in his party agree. Republicans say officers can legally rely on an immigration judge’s administrative warrant to enter someone’s home.

“Judicial warrants versus administrative warrants ... that will never happen,” Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska said when asked whether any Democratic proposals were nonstarters for him.

Meanwhile, Republicans are issuing their own demands. Speaker Johnson said on Monday that he wanted negotiations to include restrictions on sanctuary cities. This term lacks a legal definition but generally refers to cities that limit cooperation with federal authorities on immigration.

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson told Punchbowl News that, “if Democrats get anything, we have to demand all kinds of things.”

He listed restrictions on sanctuary cities as well as passage of the SAVE America Act, a voter-ID bill Republicans are pushing that has garnered strong Democratic opposition.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Other Republicans are waiting on the White House to weigh in.

“I’d love to see some measures in the bill about sanctuary cities,’’ said Rep. Nathaniel Moran of Texas. “But we’ll see where the president lands on it.”

Incidents in which federal immigration agents injured or killed people were ricocheting across the internet – and emerging in legal filings – well before an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. 

In more than a dozen legal claims reviewed for this article, dated June through December of 2025, people said immigration personnel from ICE and the U.S. Border Patrol assaulted or detained them without cause. Claimants left these encounters with bruises, lacerations, and head injuries, the filings said. Almost a dozen people alleged that they were tackled or thrown to the ground. Multiple claimants said that federal personnel pushed their knees into detainees’ faces, necks, or backs; one man said agents pepper sprayed him before repeatedly punching him in the face and head. Most of these claimants are U.S. citizens or in the country legally. 

Firm numbers aren’t available from the Department of Homeland Security, but in interviews with six immigration lawyers and civil rights groups, from Massachusetts to Virginia to California, all agreed they’ve seen an increase in people accusing immigration agents of using excessive force in the past year. 

Why We Wrote This

In cases that haven’t gotten a national spotlight, U.S. citizens and legal residents say they’ve been injured by federal immigration enforcement personnel. Their lawyers say these cases are part of a rise in the use of excessive force, tied to the administration’s efforts to detain and deport unauthorized immigrants.

Many of those complaints have been filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a 1946 statute that provides the only pathway for individuals to sue the federal government for personal injury. 

Although few of the cases have won wide public attention, or been adjudicated yet, the lawyers say this increase in claims suggests that excessive use of force is a problem that extends far beyond Minnesota, where the recent fatal shootings of Ms. Good and protester Alex Pretti drew a national spotlight.

The incidents raise complex legal questions about who is liable when federal immigration agents injure members of the public. The federal government and its employees are generally shielded by sovereign immunity from being sued for official acts. That stands in contrast to local and state law enforcement. 

“All of this really highlights the lack of federal accountability,” says Patrick Jaicomo, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm. “That’s a huge problem for a country that holds itself up as one that has a powerful Constitution that is supposed to rein in the worst government abuses.” 

ICE has historically fielded hundreds of FTCA claims each year, and people can file them for things other than physical harm. Yet the surge in immigration operations in major cities has made encounters between civilians and federal law enforcement more common, says Michael Fuller, a civil rights lawyer based in Portland, Oregon. He says his office has seen “a huge wave of people reaching out with excessive force claims.” 

“It’s not typical that you have federal agents using excessive force, because it’s not typical to have federal agents conducting operations” at such a large scale, Mr. Fuller says. 

Since Ms. Good’s killing, immigration agents have shot at least four people – including Mr. Pretti. That shooting has sparked nationwide protests and calls for the resignation of Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Since then, President Donald Trump’s border czar Tom Homan has said immigration officials are working on a “drawdown” plan to reduce the number of agents in Minnesota. 

A recent report from NBC News found that immigration personnel have shot at least 13 people since September, including Mr. Pretti and Ms. Good. At least four of those shootings were fatal, NBC said, and six involved people who were charged with crimes. (Charges were dismissed in two of those six cases.) It’s not clear how many of the shootings have been investigated by authorities. In fiscal year 2023, ICE agents were involved in five shootings; Border Patrol was involved in 18, according to a 2024 DHS report. 

The Trump administration has consistently defended its tactics. Top officials have argued that immigration officers use only the amount of force necessary to conduct their duties. The administration has also criticized Democrats for rhetoric that, in its view, unfairly demonizes federal law enforcement. Administration officials point to figures such as Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who has compared the United States today to early Nazi Germany. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz recently called ICE “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.”

“[ICE agents] are great, patriotic, men and women, who have families, and who put on the uniform every day, and are following the nation’s immigration laws,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Jan. 15. DHS has also maintained that its agents face frequent attacks, citing a 1,300% increase in assaults last year compared with 2024. Some news reports have disputed those figures, finding the increase to be closer to 25%. Two separate shootings at ICE facilities in Texas last year highlight the risks federal officers face, says Tony Pham, a senior fellow on homeland security at the America First Policy Institute.

“There are times when peace officers have to apply force in order to apply and enforce the law,” says Mr. Pham, a former acting director of ICE. “For the most part, our officers go out there day in and day out, and they place their lives on the line to enforce the law that Congress passed.”

Mr. Pham also argues that federal agents’ immunity is necessary for officers to do their jobs without fear of prosecution. 

“If individual men and women in uniform feel that they’re going to be subject to multimillion dollar lawsuits, or potential civil rights criminal prosecution without protections,” he says, “how many of them are really going to want to enforce the laws?” 

What we know about legal filings

Exact statistics on the number of FTCA claims filed since President Trump took office are difficult to come by. No central database tracks them. The FTCA also requires that claimants first file a complaint with the accused agency, which then has six months to act on the claim before a case can proceed to federal court. Because many cases may still be in the administrative complaint phase, court records are likely incomplete. 

ICE often details the number of FTCA claims it has handled in a given year in its annual reports and congressional budget justifications. But its most recent justification, from last year, does not contain the figures, and the agency has not released an annual report for 2025. 

One man in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, alleged in a lawsuit that an ICE agent used a carotid chokehold – a potentially fatal technique that blocks breathing – to subdue him while he was sitting in his car. The Department of Homeland Security’s policy on use of force prohibits carotid chokeholds unless “deadly force is authorized.” Lethal force is allowed only if the officer believes “the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of serious bodily injury” to another person. In a social media post, DHS did not cite a deadly threat and said the man was “faking” distress. An investigation by ProPublica found at least 40 instances of agents using similar chokeholds.

ICE and DHS did not respond to requests for comment for this article. In a statement, the Department of Justice said it would “vigorously defend” the president’s immigration crackdown from “any number of meritless lawsuits.” 

Many instances where officers use force hinge on split-second, high-stress decisions in which agents seek to protect themselves or others, says Mr. Pham. He points out that the vast majority of law enforcement encounters end peacefully. 

Yet those decrying ICE’s tactics have also criticized incidents of force that don’t appear to require quick decision-making.

In December, Hilda Ramirez Sanan, a permanent resident, filed an FTCA complaint against ICE after officers pulled her and her family from their car in Chelsea, Massachusetts. Officers surrounded her vehicle in unmarked cars, the complaint alleges, and failed to identify themselves before forcing her and her family, including her 13-year-old son, from the vehicle. ICE told local news that they were targeting Ms. Ramirez’s brother-in-law, who was in the car and who the agency says is in the country illegally.

Immigration personnel “slammed” Ms. Ramirez to the ground, her claim says, twisting her arms behind her back and kicking one of her legs. The incident left her with bruising and a concussion, according to her claim. 

“These complaints we’re filing are not isolated, but they are instead part of a well-documented pattern,” says Jillian Lenson, an attorney with Lawyers for Civil Rights in Boston. She represents Ms. Ramirez. ICE agents are “surrounding vehicles in unmarked cars, smashing car windows before asking any questions, [and] dragging people from their own vehicles to arrest them without cause or the diligence required by ICE’s own standards.”

Questions of accountability

The FTCA may well play a central role in future litigation against immigration agencies, says Mr. Jaicomo, the lawyer from the Institute for Justice. Yet he also says that highlights a lack of accountability that’s baked into the legal system, regarding federal agencies.

While the FTCA sometimes allows lawsuits to move forward despite the sovereign immunity that’s typically afforded to the federal government, the scope is narrow. The law cannot, for example, be used to sue the government for broad policy decisions.

“[The FTCA] was built to give people compensation when the postman drives the postal truck through their garage,” Mr. Jaicomo says. “It wasn’t meant for this kind of thing. And so at best, we’ve cobbled together a sort of abstruse way of dealing with this that’s just full of exceptions and folds.” 

Democratic leaders throughout the country are attempting to institute state-level safeguards. Leaders in New York, California, and Maryland have suggested passing legislation allowing for civil rights suits against federal law enforcement. And in Massachusetts, Gov. Maura Healey recently signed an executive order to prohibit immigration arrests in “sensitive places” such as courts, schools, and hospitals. 

Anya Bidwell, another attorney with the Institute for Justice, says these efforts will likely face legal challenges from the federal government. Yet she praises states for seeking to address what she sees as a longstanding lack of accountability for federal law enforcement. 

“It’s not like we can blame Trump for all of our problems. This has been a problem for a long time,” she says. “That’s why it is so important that everybody on both sides of the political aisle fix these cracks, and make sure that the next time we have an administration that is challenging the barriers to this extent, we are prepared for it.”

As the Trump administration forges ahead with its goal to “Make America Healthy Again,” officials are aiming to reach U.S. children through the country’s public schools, pushing through some already prickly resistance.

Last month, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins flipped the traditional U.S. food pyramid upside down, shifting the primary focus from whole grains and nutrient-rich foods to protein (including red meat) and full-fat dairy – a move sure to have significant ripple effects on school cafeterias. A week later, President Donald Trump signed the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, offering schools more flexibility in meal choices, including whole milk.

And last summer, Mr. Trump also signed an executive order reinstating the Presidential Fitness Test for students, shifting from health-focused metrics back to a more competitive standard.

Why We Wrote This

The “Make America Healthy Again” movement has won some bipartisan support for trying to get processed foods out of schools. But it’s also facing pushback. A look at how schoolchildren may see food and fitness change.

The MAHA movement, framed as an effort to fight chronic disease, has won some bipartisan support for its focus on getting ultraprocessed foods – like chips and hot dogs – out of schools. But it’s also facing pushback. Some lawmakers and health experts say some guidelines are scientifically and nutritionally misguided. (This fall, 15 Democratic governors formed their own public health alliance to set independent standards on public health.) The fitness test also has its critics.

Still, even with headwinds, the Trump administration’s new rules are set to move forward, with schools beginning to consider ways to adapt.

The school lunches have taken center stage, as supporters argue that the nutritional benefits of more milk fat and protein intake – like eggs and butter – in a balanced diet outweigh concerns about saturated fat. That, they say, signals a shift toward healthier, less processed dietary habits.

“If you think about the fact that you’ve got 30 million kids a day eating school meals and that those meals are based on these dietary guidelines, that’s a tremendous opportunity to invest in the health and academic achievement of America’s youth,” says Diane Pratt-Heavener, director of media relations for the School Nutrition Association.

Supporters say the new legislation also increases school and parent choices.

For example, under the act Mr. Trump signed, schools can serve whole or 2% milk and allow parents to send a note if their child needs a dairy milk alternative, rather than requiring a doctor’s sign-off. Under the Obama administration, whole milk was phased out altogether in favor of lower-fat options.

President Trump has also created umbrellas under his MAHA movement, one of which is Make Our Children Healthy Again, or MOCHA. A MOCHA commission released its first study in September, which called for banning or limiting artificial, petroleum-based food dyes and increasing access to whole foods.

The report also said that the current School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program have contributed to children’s poor health by failing to limit ultraprocessed foods, and leading kids to eat more sugar, processed fats, carbohydrates, and sodium, such as in granola bars, packaged chips, and chicken nuggets.

Who defines “healthy food”?

Federal regulators are now stepping in to define “ultraprocessed foods,” aiming to create a unified standard that moves beyond varied state regulations. Secretary Kennedy’s guidelines call for reduced consumption of chips, candy, and other sugary foods. They also recommend reducing refined carbohydrates, such as white bread, flour tortillas, and crackers. Ultraprocessed foods have been linked to obesity, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes.

But further clarity is needed, health experts say.

“If the USDA takes this recommendation to reduce highly processed foods and applies it to school meals, they will need to define what it is that schools have to limit,” says Ms. Pratt-Heavener, who welcomes the idea.

“If we have this patchwork of differing state laws, it’s going to be very difficult for food companies to develop products that can be sold in schools throughout the country.”

The new food pyramid has won endorsements from farmers in industries like beef and dairy, which have shown strong financial and political support for President Trump.

But it has also been driven by a continued public demand for better nutrition for students.

Despite their other objections to some of MAHA’s policies, for example, the American Medical Association, American Heart Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics have long-standing guidelines that align closely with MAHA’s emphasis on whole foods.

But moving from fried chicken nuggets to baked chicken cutlets, from congressional testimony to cafeteria lines, might not happen quickly. To apply guidelines and rules around school meals, the Department of Agriculture will have to issue a proposed rule, accept public comment, consider feedback, and then draft a final rule. After that, states and schools will begin making the necessary adjustments. But it will take time.

“The release of the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans is a pivotal step to Make America Healthy Again through real, nutrient-dense foods,” according to a statement from the USDA.

Incorporating those guidelines will be a multiyear effort, the statement said.

Bars out, butter in

Many school districts, still implementing Biden administration directives that limit the use of sugar, are only now selecting food vendors for the 2026-2027 school year. So the new pyramid guidelines are unlikely to impact lunch trays for months, if not longer.

But students might taste some differences sooner than that. Starting this fall, flavored milk can’t have more than 10 grams of added sugar per 8 ounces. By the end of the 2027-2028 school year, added sugar cannot make up more than 10% of calories a week in breakfast and lunch programs. And schools must reduce sodium by 15% in lunches and 10% in breakfasts beginning on July 1, 2027.

Mara Fleishman, CEO of the Chef Ann Foundation, a nonprofit focused on school food reform, says highlighting the importance of students eating less sugar and more whole foods is a good thing. But, she adds, the government needs to adequately fund its new MAHA program and overall school nutrition efforts.

In early 2025, as the Trump administration slashed government spending, the USDA cut $660 million from the Local Food for Schools program, which had traditionally helped state agencies buy fresh, local food for school lunch programs. But Ms. Fleishman contends that, for MAHA to be successful, the current average reimbursement of $4.50 per lunch served must be increased.

“Moving districts to serve less processed food is what we’re trying to do,” Ms. Fleishman says. “But it requires support. It requires the right equipment. It requires funding.”

Districts need to be shown how to create varied menus, identify where they can spend more on higher-quality ingredients, reassess labor costs, and acquire the proper equipment, she adds.

Not all nuggets are created equal

One school district already taking the lead on healthier eating is the Boulder Valley School District in Boulder County, Colorado, which runs a top-tier scratch kitchen. It serves 17,000 meals across 53 schools daily and operates a state-of-the-art, $14 million central kitchen, opened in 2020.

Among the items it serves are all-natural chicken nuggets, seasoned with spices; marinara sauce made with tomatoes from local farms; and Korean bulgogi. It prepares 80% of the meals in its central kitchen and has a fleet of trucks deliver them to schools, where staff finish cooking and preparing them. The Boulder Valley School District prepares its menus in three-week blocks.

“I wouldn’t go as far as to say that we agree with everything that’s in the new pyramid, but I do definitely agree with the spirit of whole, scratch-cooked foods,” says Carolyn Villa, the district’s director of food services. Schools should aim for protein as well as fresh fruits and vegetables, all of which have higher nutritional value than starches, sugars, and other prepared or processed foods, she says.

But cooking 10,000 meals or more every day, as well as training people to run a production schedule, operate equipment, and manage ingredient sourcing, is a big lift, Ms. Villa says.

“It takes several years of dedicated effort to build a capable workforce to do that.”

Focus on fitness

Last summer, President Trump reinstated the Presidential Fitness Test, moving from more general health metrics to a more competitive standard.

Started by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s, the test is a series of physical tests, including a 1-mile run, pushups, situps, and a flexibility measure. The top 15% of performers received awards.

The Obama administration replaced the traditional test in 2012 with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, which took a less competitive, more holistic view of student health. And some professionals in the youth fitness space don’t like the idea of the old test returning.

“For decades, health and physical educators have been trying to find a way to get kids to embrace physical activity,” says Judy LoBianco, CEO of HPE Solutions, which helps schools improve their physical education instruction.

Challenges like the old Presidential Fitness Test miss the mark, she says.

Still, Virginia, Mississippi, and Oklahoma are moving to reintroduce the traditional skills-based fitness test into schools, aligning with the executive order. Mississippi and Virginia will start with the “new-old test” next fall.

Right arm extended, thumb waggling wildly against a forefinger pointed left, I am peering, I think, into the future.

The future, however, is not going well.

“Try flicking your thumb in an exaggerated way,” says Jason, who is running this high-tech demo for me.

Why We Wrote This

Meta and Ray-Ban have teamed up for the new Display smart glasses. Our reporter gives them a try, reflecting on ways the high-tech glasses might – or might not - enhance daily life.

I am flicking my thumb in an exaggerated way, and nothing is happening on the lens of the glasses I’m wearing. Other customers at this Best Buy in Nashua, N.H., walk by. I try to act nonchalant. But I’ve never shopped for smart glasses, and I’m aware people are staring.

Tech researchers and companies have long dreamed of turning smartphones into eyewear. In 2011, Epson launched the BT-100, the world’s first Android-based, see-through, wearable mini-computer screens, which allowed users to put the device on like glasses, then adjust the lenses to watch movies or read books. It was an innovative device. But in the end, it didn’t sell well and was discontinued.

In 2013, Google launched Glass, a monocular (one-eye) glass display that delivered on new smart-glasses features (like taking an displaying photos, and hands-free updates), but not the sales.

Since then, several companies have tried and failed to find the right combination of features and form to create a consumer phenomenon.

Catching consumers’ attention

Now, Meta, which teamed up with eyewear company Ray-Ban early on, has made the greatest inroads. When the Menlo Park, California-based company launched its Ray-Ban smart glasses, called Display, last September, the response was so overwhelmingly positive that Meta quickly ran out of stock and is still struggling to catch up.

In fact, the company has delayed the international rollout of Displays, saying it is prioritizing the fulfillment of U.S. orders to manage the limited inventory before focusing on orders from other countries.

If Display can attract people beyond the early adopters who have snapped up that initial supply, Meta may have created the consumer hit for this age of artificial intelligence – as Apple did with the iPhone in the internet era.

Even if this Meta iteration ultimately falters, Apple, Google, and several other tech players are racing to find a breakthrough in what many experts believe is a strong potential market.

“In a couple of decades, we will start to get rid of mobile phones, the way we see it, and information and interaction will belong right in front of your eyes on these smart glasses,” says Saeed Boorboor, a professor of computer science affiliated with the Electronic Visualization Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

To wear, or not to wear

Not everyone is gung-ho.

“Glasses are an interesting form factor, but not everyone wears a pair of glasses,” says Cindy Kao, professor and director of the Hybrid Body Lab at Cornell University. Are the features “compelling enough for everyone to get a pair of glasses and to wear them? … Do you want to be seen as wearing something like this?”

That’s one of the things I’m asking myself in this Best Buy showroom.

But the experience of trying out Meta’s Display demo, which is mandatory to qualify to buy the glasses, makes it hard not to side with the optimists.

Jason takes me through various applications included in the newest smart glasses. I’m beginning to get the hang of thumb-swiping to reach “Calls” in the menu displayed on the glasses. Then I bring my thumb and forefinger together to open the phone feature. To close out, I bring my middle finger and thumb together and swipe to other options, such as email, maps, and even a game.

One of the most impressive features is real-time translation, where words appear in English on your lens as someone is speaking in, say, Spanish. I envision the work possibilities: marking and saving important quotes as an interviewee speaks, snapping their picture, even recording a video interview, then turning my story into a podcast.

The possibilities quickly expand beyond work. I could use the glasses as my own personal teleprompter while giving speeches, never losing eye contact with the audience. I could look something up discreetly on the internet at the dinner table without incurring the wrath of my mother-in-law. And, most important, I could eventually ask the system where I misplaced some item because it would remember where I went, or where I put my car keys, or wallet.

Google demonstrated that feature with a smartphone a few years ago in a lab setting. If it ever got incorporated into a pair of Display glasses, I could envision spending the $800 Meta is charging.

Then reality sets in. Video clips are limited to a few minutes. Currently, the maps work only for walking in cities, not driving long distances. The Display’s battery, which is supposed to last up to six hours, can poop out after three or four hours with intensive use, users report. Far from ditching my smartphone, I’d have to carry it constantly because the Display, like other smart glasses, offloads much of its computation to the smartphones it connects to wirelessly.

And, I’d have to strap on a special neural wristband for the hand gestures – or commands – to work. (Other smart glasses rely on a ring.)

Then there’s the creep factor. Would others feel comfortable around me, knowing I might be photographing or recording them? Would they find my thumb-waggling weirdly cute? Or weird, and run, screaming, in the other direction? And how much of my smart-glass use data would Meta collect, and how would the company use it?

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says the gestures become much more subtle as the system adapts to the individual. He says he can now type texts and emails with subtle hand movements while talking to someone face-to-face. (Great efficiency for a busy tech CEO, but is that really a step forward in human relations?)

Then there’s the clunk factor. When I first looked at a photo of myself wearing the glasses (the one you’re seeing, dear reader), I laughed aloud. A friend, trying to be supportive, said, “You certainly make a statement.” I didn’t have to ask for details. I knew I looked like a super-nerd or a genius villain from a 1960s spy movie.

There are, in fact, other wearable technologies – such as clothing and even peel-off digital tattoos – that Dr. Kao is working on that could steal the thunder from smart glasses.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

So I didn’t buy the Display. But I love the promise. It’s the same feeling I had three decades ago, experimenting with early internet browsers. I knew they would transform the internet from a techie playground to a mainstream consumer phenomenon.

Future wearables will become lighter, less creepy, more powerful, and seamless. My thumb and I can’t wait.

The Justice Department on Friday released many more records from its investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein, resuming disclosures under a law intended to reveal what the government knew about the millionaire financier’s sexual abuse of young girls and his interactions with rich and powerful people such as Donald Trump and Bill Clinton.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the department would be releasing more than 3 million pages of documents along with more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. The files, posted to the department’s website, include some of the several million pages of records that officials said were withheld from an initial release in December.

Included were documents concerning some of Mr. Epstein’s famous associates, including Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Britain’s Prince Andrew, and email correspondence between Mr. Epstein and Elon Musk and other prominent contacts from across the political spectrum.

The documents were disclosed under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted after months of public and political pressure that requires the government to open its files on the late financier and his confidant and onetime girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Lawmakers complained when the Justice Department made only a limited release last month, but officials said more time was needed to review additional documents that were discovered and to ensure no sensitive information about victims was released.

Friday’s disclosure represents the largest document dump to date about a saga the Trump administration has struggled to shake because of the president’s previous association with Mr. Epstein.

Criminal investigations into the financier have long animated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists, and others who have suspected government cover-ups and clamored for a full accounting, demands that Mr. Blanche acknowledged might not be satisfied by the latest release.

“There’s a hunger, or a thirst, for information that I don’t think will be satisfied by the review of these documents,” he said.

After missing a Dec. 19 deadline set by Congress to release all the files, the Justice Department said it tasked hundreds of lawyers with reviewing the records to determine what needed to be redacted, or blacked out. It denied any effort to shield Mr. Trump, who says he cut ties with Mr. Epstein years ago after an earlier friendship, from potential embarrassment.

The latest batch includes correspondence either with or about some of Mr. Epstein’s friends. The records have thousands of references to Mr. Trump, including emails in which Mr. Epstein and others shared news articles about him, commented on his policies or politics, or gossiped about him and his family.

Also included was a spreadsheet created last August summarizing calls to the FBI’s National Threat Operation Center or to a hotline established by prosecutors from people claiming without corroboration to have some knowledge of wrongdoing by Mr. Trump.

Mr. Epstein killed himself in a New York jail cell in August 2019, a month after being indicted on federal sex trafficking charges. In 2021, a federal jury in New York convicted Ms. Maxwell, a British socialite, of sex trafficking for helping recruit some of his underage victims. She is serving a 20-year prison sentence.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

U.S. prosecutors never charged anyone else in connection with Mr. Epstein’s abuse of girls. One victim, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, accused him in lawsuits of having arranged for her to have sexual encounters at age 17 and 18 with numerous politicians, business titans, academics, and others. They all denied her allegations.

This story was reported by The Associated Press.

The U.S. government entered what is expected to be a brief shutdown on Saturday after Congress failed to approve a deal to keep a wide swath of operations funded ahead of a midnight deadline.

After hours of delay, the Senate passed the spending package by a bipartisan vote of 71 to 29. But the House of Representatives is out of town and not expected to take up the measure until Monday, according to a Republican leadership aide who spoke on condition of anonymity.

That partial shutdown took effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time.

The shutdown is likely to be brief. Lawmakers from both parties have been working to ensure a debate over immigration enforcement does not disrupt other government operations. This is a marked contrast from last fall, when Republicans and Democrats dug into their positions in a dispute over healthcare, prompting a shutdown that lasted a record 43 days and cost the U.S. economy an estimated $11 billion.

The government has endured 10 funding gaps of three days or fewer since 1977, most of which had little real-world effect, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The deal approved by the Senate would separate funding for the Department of Homeland Security from the broader funding package, allowing lawmakers to approve spending for agencies like the Pentagon and the Department of Labor while they consider new restrictions on federal immigration agents.

Senate Democrats, angered by the shooting of a second U.S. citizen by immigration agents in Minneapolis last weekend, had threatened to hold up the funding package in an effort to force Trump to rein in DHS, which oversees federal immigration enforcement.

Democrats want to end roving patrols, require agents to wear body cameras and prohibit them from wearing face masks. They also want to require immigration agents to get a search warrant from a judge, rather than from their own officials. Republicans say they are open to some of those ideas.

DHS funding would be extended for two weeks, giving negotiators time to reach an agreement on immigration tactics.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

The shooting death of nurse Alex Pretti by federal agents on Saturday spurred widespread public outrage, prompting the Trump administration to de-escalate operations in the region. Pretti's death was the second this month of a U.S. citizen with no criminal record involving immigration law enforcement agents.

This story is by Reuters, with reporting by David Morgan, Richard Cowan and Nolan D. McCaskill; additional reporting by Rhea Rose Abraham in Bengaluru; editing by Andy Sullivan, Chizu Nomiyama, Alistair Bell and Chris Reese.

The U.S. government entered what is expected to be a brief shutdown on Saturday after Congress failed to approve a deal to keep a wide swath of operations funded ahead of a midnight deadline.

After hours of delay, the Senate passed the spending package by a bipartisan vote of 71 to 29. But the House of Representatives is out of town and not expected to take up the measure until Monday, according to a Republican leadership aide who spoke on condition of anonymity.

That partial shutdown took effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time.

The shutdown is likely to be brief. Lawmakers from both parties have been working to ensure a debate over immigration enforcement does not disrupt other government operations. This is a marked contrast from last fall, when Republicans and Democrats dug into their positions in a dispute over healthcare, prompting a shutdown that lasted a record 43 days and cost the U.S. economy an estimated $11 billion.

The government has endured 10 funding gaps of three days or fewer since 1977, most of which had little real-world effect, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The deal approved by the Senate would separate funding for the Department of Homeland Security from the broader funding package, allowing lawmakers to approve spending for agencies like the Pentagon and the Department of Labor while they consider new restrictions on federal immigration agents.

Senate Democrats, angered by the shooting of a second U.S. citizen by immigration agents in Minneapolis last weekend, had threatened to hold up the funding package in an effort to force Trump to rein in DHS, which oversees federal immigration enforcement.

Democrats want to end roving patrols, require agents to wear body cameras and prohibit them from wearing face masks. They also want to require immigration agents to get a search warrant from a judge, rather than from their own officials. Republicans say they are open to some of those ideas.

DHS funding would be extended for two weeks, giving negotiators time to reach an agreement on immigration tactics.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

The shooting death of nurse Alex Pretti by federal agents on Saturday spurred widespread public outrage, prompting the Trump administration to de-escalate operations in the region. Pretti's death was the second this month of a U.S. citizen with no criminal record involving immigration law enforcement agents.

This story is by Reuters, with reporting by David Morgan, Richard Cowan and Nolan D. McCaskill; additional reporting by Rhea Rose Abraham in Bengaluru; editing by Andy Sullivan, Chizu Nomiyama, Alistair Bell and Chris Reese.

With a falling dollar and soaring gold prices, President Donald Trump stepped in on Friday to calm world markets. He nominated Kevin Warsh to head the Federal Reserve, America’s central bank.

It’s a key appointment closely watched around the world. For the markets, at least, the move worked. The dollar rebounded, and gold fell as much as 8% to less than $5,000 in trading on Friday.

The choice of a Fed chairman matters because of the inordinate role he or she plays in shaping Fed policy, whether overseeing banks or setting interest rates for the country. As the world’s most powerful central bank, its moves on interest rates reverberate around the world. Mr. Warsh could also set the Fed on a new course.

Why We Wrote This

President Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh to head the Federal Reserve calmed markets, but the former governor could also set the Fed on a new course.

Traders sighed with relief because Mr. Warsh, a former Fed governor, is seen as more likely to stand up to presidential pressure than Mr. Trump’s other potential nominees, such as top presidential adviser Kevin Hassett, once considered the front-runner for the Fed position.

“Kevin Warsh is not as malleable as Kevin Hassett,” says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, president of the Chief Executive Leadership Institute at Yale University and author of an upcoming book, “Trump’s Ten Commandments.”

A matter of independence and influence

In some ways, Mr. Warsh represents a strange choice for Mr. Trump. For months, the president has publicly pressured the Fed to lower interest rates more quickly to boost growth. Mr. Warsh, often referred to as an “inflation hawk,” has historically criticized such efforts, preferring to ensure inflation stays in check by keeping rates high.

In a 2010 speech, while a Fed governor, Mr. Warsh emphasized the importance of the central bank’s independence from political influence.

In other ways, however, Mr. Warsh, a New Yorker who graduated from Stanford University and then Harvard Law School, represents the kind of maverick outsider Mr. Trump might appreciate at the Fed. For example, he has recently argued that interest rates could fall further if his big Fed reforms are implemented.

He is also skeptical of institutional overreach.

A critic of some Fed moves

As governor during the financial crisis of 2008-09, for example, Mr. Warsh became a valuable aide to Ben Bernanke, then Fed chairman, who made bold and unconventional moves to keep the nation’s banks from collapsing.

But he grew increasingly critical of those moves, especially the Fed’s large-scale purchases of federal government and agency debt, known as quantitative easing (QE). A few months after the Fed announced a second round of purchases, known as QE2, Mr. Warsh quit the Fed, having served less than half of his 14-year term.

The central bank has been slow to reduce its portfolio of federal debt. In Mr. Warsh’s view, those holdings are distorting the market and should be radically reduced. A key example was his 2010 skepticism toward the second round of quantitative easing, where, while still serving as a Fed governor, he warned that large-scale bond purchases risked market distortions.

He has also criticized a much newer policy, called Reserve Management Purchases (RMP), in which the Fed also purchases federal debt. The central bank claims it’s designed to manage liquidity in the financial system, but critics say it also serves as QE.

In Mr. Warsh’s view, all that liquidity overstimulates the economy. If the Fed were to draw down its huge portfolio of federal debt, that stimulus would abate. That would allow the central bank to reduce interest rates without sparking inflation.

The central bank’s policy “has been broken for quite a long time,” he said last year. He criticized the current chairman, Jerome Powell, for allowing inflation to surge in 2021-22, calling it the “greatest mistake in macroeconomic policy in 45 years.”

Mr. Powell’s term ends in May. Mr. Warsh, if approved by the Senate, would succeed him.

Senatorial Pushback

The Republican majority usually would make confirmation a shoo-in. But President Trump’s pressure tactics against Mr. Powell, including a Justice Department investigation into Mr. Powell himself, have angered many senators, including Republican Thom Tillis of North Carolina. As part of the committee that handles Fed nominations, he has vowed to oppose any Fed confirmation until the Powell investigation is complete.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Should he be confirmed, Mr. Warsh may face even tougher opposition within the Federal Open Market Committee, the Fed body that sets interest rates. His criticisms have been harsh, and his views are in the minority.

“We think it will be difficult for Warsh to get the FOMC on board with his policy agenda,” Bank of America analysts wrote in a note Friday.

The recent unrest in Minnesota has reminded me of the words of an anguished mother from nearly a decade ago: “You could be next.” 

That was Valerie Castile’s response in 2017 when a Minnesota jury found the police officer, who killed her son Philando during a routine traffic stop, not guilty.

In recent weeks, in the state where George Floyd and Mr. Castile died in fatal encounters with law enforcement, civil protests ended in tragedy when federal agents killed two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Their deaths are echoes of a uniquely American narrative. In 1967, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, riots erupted in the predominantly Jewish and Black communities of north Minneapolis. Police brutality was a factor then, too. 

Why We Wrote This

The United States has a long history of civil rights protests. Cultural commentator Ken Makin identifies a through line of resistance, from 1960s Mississippi to 2020s Minnesota. The wrestling between civil rights advocates and their opponents is baked into American life, he writes, affecting people, policies, and policing.

Name a city that has seen recent protests: Portland, Oregon; Washington, D.C.; Chicago; Los Angeles. Too often, the First Amendment freedoms of expression and assembly have been met with repression by law enforcement. Minneapolis begs a question: Do we choose to repair society’s wrongs? Or repeat them?

Painfully, the answer remains the latter. Five years ago, officials called for “racial healing” to calm the unrest provoked by Mr. Floyd’s death, which occurred literally under the knee of law enforcement. The Minneapolis shooting victims were white, but race is a motive in the deployment of federal officers on American streets to round up people ethnically rooted in countries the Trump administration disparages.

Buzzwords alone are not a salve, nor are they functional policy. The policy gains of the 1960s are fleeting and fragile. The historian Ibram X. Kendi noted recently that President Andrew Johnson vetoed the first Civil Rights Act in 1866, which Congress then overrode, granting citizenship to Black Americans. This section of Mr. Johnson’s veto jumped out at me:

In all our history, in all our experience as a people living under Federal and State law, no such system as that contemplated by the details of this bill has ever before been proposed or adopted. They establish for the security of the colored race safeguards which go infinitely beyond any that the General Government has ever provided for the white race. 

That was 160 years ago. President Johnson regarded equality for Africans in America, which by proxy has often proved to be rights for all, as excessive and providing an unfair advantage. In a January 2026 interview, President Donald Trump was asked about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which secured equal access to education and employment for Black Americans. He said those protections resulted in white people being "very badly treated." 

I can only describe the human costs of the Civil Rights Movement as monumental, and that goes beyond the lives lost. The trauma of a generation who grew up with the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr., Medgar Evers, and Malcolm X, among many others, is ever present. The wrestling between civil rights advocates and their opponents is baked into American life – from its people, to its policy, and yes, its policing. 

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

In Minneapolis today, parents are afraid to send their children to school because of the presence of federal law enforcement officers armed with military-grade hardware in their streets. Others have kept their children home in acts of protests. They did the same in 2021, ahead of the trial of the police officer who killed George Floyd. 

Civil disobedience has its own through line in American history. Sometimes, in order to repair, you have to repeat what works.