The Department of Education is cutting its workforce of more than 4,100 people by nearly 50%, the agency announced on Tuesday evening.
The big picture: Education Secretary Linda McMahon confirmed to Fox News the action was the first step toward President Trump's plans for a total shutdown of the agency.
Trump floated the idea of "disbanding" the agency on the 2024 election campaign trail.
"That was the president's mandate," McMahon said on Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle." "His directive to me, clearly, is to shut down the Department of Education which we know we'll have to work with Congress to get that accomplished."
State of play: "Reduction in Force" notices started to go out to impacted employees at 6pm ET Tuesday, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Those staff members will be placed on administrative leave beginning March 21, the department said.
Every part of the department is expected to be impacted.
However, the agency said it will continue to deliver on all statutory programs that fall under its purview — including formula funding, student loans, Pell Grants, funding for special needs students and competitive grant-making.
Zoom in: Among the 2,183 workers being laid off is almost 600 staffers who agreed to resign or retire over the past seven weeks. These include:
What they're saying: McMahon said in a statement that Tuesday's reduction reflects the department's "commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: to students, parents, and teachers."
She later told Fox News host Laura Ingraham the Trump administration was "not taking away education, the president never said that."
McMahon said Trump was "taking the bureaucracy out of education so that more money flows to the states."
She added: "Better education is closest to the kids, with parents, with local superintendents, with local school boards. I think we'll see our scores go up with our students and we can educate them with parental input as well."
Editor's note: This article has been updated with details from Education Secretary Linda McMahon's interview on Fox News.
The Department of Education announced Monday it's investigating 60 colleges and universities over allegations of antisemitic harassment and discrimination.
The big picture: The warning comes after President Trump threatened last week to pull federal funding from colleges he accused of allowing "illegal protests" on campus.
His administration on Friday pulled some $400 million in federal grants and contracts from Columbia University, citing the school's alleged "continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students."
Columbia served as the epicenter of nationwide protests last spring over Israel's handling of the war in Gaza.
Zoom in: The Education Department sent five dozen universities, including Ivy League and UC schools, warning letters Monday, saying they must fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students.
All of the universities are under investigation for alleged Title VI violations relating to antisemitic harassment and discrimination, according to the department.
What they're saying: "The Department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year. University leaders must do better," newly confirmed Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement.
"U.S. colleges and universities benefit from enormous public investments funded by U.S. taxpayers. That support is a privilege and it is contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws."
Zoom out: Trump on Monday praised the arrest of a pro-Palestinian activist and Columbia University alumnus, saying it's the first of "many to come."
He said, "We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it."
Why it matters: The Trump administration appears willing to curb, or potentially outlaw, protest movements it disapproves of.
Driving the news: Trump wrote on Truth Social that Khalil is "a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student" and promised to "find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again."
Khalil attended Columbia University on a student visa and was one of the most visible student activists during the Pro-Palestinian encampment at the school last spring. He gave multiple interviews on the protest and engaged in negotiations with university leaders regarding protesters' demands.
Before his arrest, he told the AP that Columbia accused him of misconduct weeks before his December graduation, and that most of them involved social media posts he had "nothing to do with."
What we're watching: U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman blocked any attempt by the Trump administration to deport Khalil until the court says otherwise.
A conference between the judge and all parties is scheduled for Wednesday in Manhattan federal court.
Between the lines: ICE agents told Khalil prior to his Saturday arrest that his student visa had been revoked. But he is a legal permanent resident and not in the U.S. on a student visa, attorney Amy Greer said in a statement.
Khalil's whereabouts had been a mystery following his arrest, with his wife being told he was sent to a facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. When she attempted to visit him, there was no record of Khalil being processed, Greer said.
ICE records show Khalil is currently being held at the Jena/LaSalle Detention Facility, also known as the Central Louisiana Ice Processing Center (CLIPC), in Jena, Louisiana. Greer said arrangements had been made for local attorneys to visit him in the state on Monday and Tuesday.
What they're saying: "We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it," the president wrote, saying many involved "are not students" but "paid agitators."
"If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here," Trump added.
DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told Axios in a statement that Kahlil "led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization," and that his arrest was conducted in support of the president's executive orders "prohibiting anti-Semitism."
The other side: "The disturbing arrest of Mahmoud Khalil for exercising his right to free speech marks a dramatic escalation in the Trump administration's abuse of immigration enforcement and disregard for the law," said Kica Matos, president of the National Immigration Law Center.
Matos also called for Khalil's immediate release.
Greer said transferring her client to Louisiana "is a blatantly improper but familiar tactic designed to frustrate the New York federal court's jurisdiction, and isolate Mahmoud far from his lawyers, his home, and his local community of support — although now his growing support group extends internationally."
Zoom out: Khalil's arrest comes as the Trump administration moves to revoke student visas for foreign nationals it deems to be "Hamas sympathizers" — a process that will involve AI-assisted reviews student visa holders' social media accounts.
Trump has also threatened to halt federal funding for schools and universities that allow "illegal protests."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on X last week that the U.S. has "zero tolerance for foreign visitors who support terrorists."
He added that "violators of U.S. law — including international students — face visa denial or revocation, and deportation."
U.S. law allows the Secretary of State to deport someone if they are deemed to have "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States."
Context: There are currently around 13 million green card holders, or lawful permanent residents, in the U.S., according to the Office of Homeland Security Statistics.
Green card holders are immigrants who have been granted lawful permanent residence are not yet U.S. citizens.
How it works: A foreign national can get a green card through a job offer from a U.S. employer, family sponsorship from a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, a year after being granted refugee or asylum status or through the annual Diversity Green Card Lottery.
A green card can be revoked for fraud, violating immigration laws, criminal activity or failure to maintain permanent residence.
Some Trump administration officials citing health concerns are looking to remove "junk food" from a federal food assistance program serving more than 41 million Americans.
The big picture: A ban on any foods in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program could be particularly paramount for recipients living in food deserts who don't have access to nutritious foods nearby.
A ban would require action through Congress.
Late last month, House Republicans voted to pass a budget resolution that sets the stage for $230 billion or more in cuts to agriculture programs, with a large chunk expected to come from SNAP.
State of play: The Food and Nutrition Act defines food for SNAP purposes as any food or food product for home consumption, with some limited exceptions like alcoholic beverages or hot foods for immediate consumption.
In order to narrow that definition, either Congress would need to change the law or a state would need to propose and get approval for a demonstration project to test that, Katie Bergh, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told Axios.
"This is something that we've seen a handful of states request in the past, where they essentially are asking the Department of Agriculture to approve a request to restrict the foods that SNAP participants within their state can purchase in some form," she said.
But no such requests has ever been approved under either Republican or Democratic presidents, including under the first Trump administration.
Catch up quick: Newly-confirmed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins have indicated they're in favor of removing sugary drinks and processed foods from SNAP.
"The one place that I would say that we need to really change policy is the SNAP program and food stamps and in school lunches," Kennedy said on Fox News last month. "There, the federal government in many cases is paying for it. And we shouldn't be subsidizing people to eat poison."
Rollins echoed the sentiment, telling reporters at the White House, "When a taxpayer is putting money into SNAP, are they OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children who perhaps need something more nutritious?"
By the numbers: More than 41 million people in the U.S. received SNAP benefits in 2024.
The average SNAP benefit per person in fiscal year 2025 is $6.16 per day, according to estimates from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Zoom in: There are a number of risks with the proposal to cut foods from SNAP, including logistical and cost concerns, access in food deserts, equity issues and questions over how to measure success and behavioral changes among consumers.
Anything that increases administrative burden affects other parts of the program at the state level, Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP Deputy Director at the Food Research & Action Center, told Axios.
Case in point: There would be a large impact on retailers. Those that are not large scale like Walmart, with resources to change markings on SNAP-approved foods, could decide not to operate the program at their stores at all.
Deciding which foods to cut also presents questions on how to define and measure junk foods, Plata-Nino said, questioning whether it'll be through sodium or sugar content.
Orange juice, for example, has a lot of sugar but is important for diabetics having medical issues, she noted. Cheese has a higher content of sodium than some chips, and milk has a higher fat content than other drinks.
"Are we going to ban milk and cheese?" she questioned.
Food deserts are areas where residents have limited access to affordable and healthy food, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables.
In such areas, individuals may be driving two hours each way to a grocery store and so they're unable to go as often, Gina Plata-Nino said.
Because fresh produce doesn't last a month until they're able to go again, people there may buy food in bulk, processed items that last longer or opt for frozen options — foods that could potentially be cut under the proposal.
Between the lines: The diets of Americans across income levels are falling short of what experts recommend.
Bergh said aside from feasibility and cost concerns, the premise of the junk food cutting effort is "fundamentally misguided."
"Contrary to some of the claims that proponents of these efforts have been making, there's actually pretty extensive research linking SNAP participation to better health outcomes and lower medical costs," Bergh said, noting limited data on what SNAP participants buy.
What she's saying: The data available shows there's no meaningful difference in the types of foods people are purchasing with SNAP versus other payment methods.
"So it's pretty troubling that the solutions being proposed here are ones that really only single out the lowest income Americans in a way that's really stigmatizing and burdensome for them," Bergh said.
"Just as a basic principle, everyone should have the same ability to choose the foods that best meet their needs regardless of how I'm paying at the checkout line."
SpaceX's Starship rocket exploded minutes after it launched from Texas Thursday.
The big picture: Debris from the rocket caused flight delays in cities across the U.S., including Miami and Philadelphia, FAA data show.
It's the spacecraft's second consecutive test flight from Elon Musk's space technology company to end in destruction, after another such explosion nearly two months ago.
Driving the news: "During Starship's ascent burn, the vehicle experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly and contact was lost," SpaceX said in a post on X.
The SpaceX team then activated on its pre-planned contingency responses, and said they'll review data from the flight test to better understand the cause.
"As always, success comes from what we learn, and today's flight will offer additional lessons to improve Starship's reliability," the post read.
Zoom in: An FAA spokesperson told Axios in an emailed statement Thursday evening that the agency is requiring SpaceX to perform a mishap investigation into the loss of the Starship vehicle during the launch.
"During the event, the FAA activated a Debris Response Area and briefly slowed aircraft outside the area where space vehicle debris was falling or stopped aircraft at their departure location," the spokesperson said.
Normal operations have resumed, per the FAA.
Representatives for SpaceX did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.
Editor's note: This story has been corrected to state that debris from the rocket caused flight delays in Miami and Philadelphia.
President Trump used his platform before Congress on Tuesday to affirm the U.S. is "woke no longer" while promoting his blitz of executive orders since taking office six weeks ago.
The big picture: Early in his speech, the president cited symbolic actions he's made since taking office, particularly those pertaining to cultural and social issues dividing the country.
Zoom in: Trump touted having signed nearly 100 executive orders and taking more than 400 executive actions, "a record to restore common sense, safety, optimism and wealth all across our wonderful land," he said. The moves he mentioned:
Signing an executive order banning men from playing in women's sports
What he's saying: "Our country will be woke no longer," he said.
"We believe that whether you are a doctor, an accountant, a lawyer or an air traffic controller, you should be hired and promoted based on skill and competence, not race or gender," Trump continued.
President Trump praised Elon Musk for his work on DOGE, which he said the billionaire "headed," during Tuesday evening's address to a joint session of Congress.
Driving the news: Musk was met with two standing ovations and protest signs during Trump's speech as he sat as a White House guest of first lady Melania Trump.
New York Democratic Rep. Nydia Velázquez and other Democrats hold "Musk Steals" protest signs as President Trump speaks during his address to a joint session of Congress on March 4. Photo: Win McNamee/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
What he's saying: "I have created the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency: DOGE. Perhaps you've heard of it," Trump said during his address.
"Which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight," Trump added, pointing to the world's richest person. "He's working very hard. He didn't need this."
The intrigue: Despite Trump's comment, the White House said in a court filing last month that Musk is not the administrator of DOGE, nor is he an employee of the department that's overseeing massive cuts to the federal workforce and agencies.
The big picture: DOGE has been behind the federal government overhaul that has led to job cuts and funding freezes and rattled Washington, D.C.
President Trump has kept the billionaire CEO close by since he took office. Musk has officially served as a "special government employee" and had sweeping influence over the administration's opening weeks.
Elon Musk arrives for a joint session of Congress in Washington, D.C., on March 4. Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Elon Musk is pictured at Trump's primetime address from Capitol Hill. Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The TAKE IT DOWN Act, an online safety legislation, is gaining steam in Washington, D.C., as first lady MelaniaTrump expressed her support Monday.
The big picture: The bipartisan bill aims to bolster protections against the non-consensual dissemination of sexual images, including those generated through artificial intelligence and targets deepfake and revenge pornography.
Driving the news: The first lady and House Speaker Mike Johnson joined a roundtable on Capitol Hill on Monday with congressional leaders and victims of child sexual abuse material.
At the meeting, Melania Trump spoke of the risks of an "AI-driven" world, saying, "Every young person deserves a safe online space to express themselves free without the looming threat of exploitation."
What is the TAKE IT DOWN Act?
The TAKE IT DOWN Act would require tech and social media platforms to remove CSAM and non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours of being notified by a victim, and it criminalizes posting such content, per Axios' Maria Curi.
Under the bill, people who post such content would face penalties and prison time.
The FTC could sue tech companies for not complying as an unfair or deceptive act or practice, Curi writes.
Who is supporting the bill?
The bill is sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and has bipartisan support including from cosponsors like Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.).
The Senate passed the legislation unanimously last month.
Where it stands
House leaders said Monday they're ready to pass the bill.
House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie said an educational hearing on the bill will be held "very, very soon."
He vowed it would be a top priority for the committee "over the next few weeks."
The U.S. pledged more than $65 billion in military assistance to Ukraine under the Biden administration, but President Trumpdecided Monday to pull the plug, at least temporarily.
The big picture: Following a contentious televised meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump debated his next steps in the crisis with Ukraine, and indicated a possible suspension of U.S. military aid.
The decision to pause and review all military aid, which comes as Trump pushes for peace talks, will be detrimental to Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia.
While Trump has not authorized a new assistance package for Ukraine, billions of dollars of equipment committed under Biden remains in different stages along the delivery pipeline, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
Zoom in: The CSIS report found that it typically takes about eight months from the announcement of an arms package to the completion of the delivery.
That suggests much of what Biden promised in his last year in office has likely not yet been delivered — thought the Pentagon did attempt to surge deliveries in Biden's final weeks.
It takes even longer — often several years — for weapons coming from U.S. defense contractors, rather than existing stockpiles, to be delivered.
It would therefore take years to deliver what the U.S. has already promised.
Between the lines: With no aid announced since Trump took office, the deliveries to Ukraine from the U.S. have slowed, and remaining shipments of ammunition and equipment authorized under Biden could be canceled soon, a Trump administration official told the New York Times Friday.
The administration does have the authority to stop the shipments, despite promises made by the previous administration, per CSIS.
"More difficult would be stopping shipments of newly produced weapons from contracts Ukraine signed with the defense industry, though with funds provided by the United States," per the think tank, because legally those belong to Ukraine.
However, the U.S. might be able to divert shipments to its own forces under Title I of the Defense Production Act or other emergency authorities.
By the numbers: As of January 20, the U.S. had dolled out $65.9 billion in military assistance to the country since Russia's invasion in February 2022, per the State Department.
That includes air defense equipment, guns, ammunition, missiles, laser-guided rocket systems, air surveillance radars, helicopters, bomb launchers, hundreds of thousands of artillery rounds, tanks, armored vehicles, boats and more.
Including humanitarian and financial assistance, Congress has appropriated$174.2 billion for Ukraine since 2022.
Zoom out: Ukraine also relies on the U.S. for more than just weapons and cash.
The Ukrainian military also relies heavily on the Starlink satellite internet system from Elon Musk's SpaceX, with some 42,000 Starlink terminals in operation across the country as of last year.
Ukraine's military also depends on U.S. intelligence, including to target drone strikes.
The fate of broader U.S.-Ukraine cooperation remains uncertain after the public split between Trump and Zelensky.
Mexico extradited 29 people accused of being involved in drug cartels to the U.S. on Thursday, the Department of Justice announced.
The big picture: The move is a part ofPresident Trump's vow to crack down on cartels for what he called in an executive order a "campaign of violence and terror" that saw him designate eight drug cartels as global terrorist organizations last week.
Driving the news: The 29 people taken in U.S. custody Thursday face charges in various districts relating to racketeering, drug-trafficking, murder, illegal use of firearms, money laundering and other crimes, per the DOJ.
They include leaders and managers of drug cartels recently designated as "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" and "Specially Designated Global Terrorists," like the Sinaloa Cartel.
Among them is infamous drug lord Rafael Caro Quintero, who was wanted in the U.S. for allegedly being involved in the kidnapping and killing of an undercover DEA agent.
"These defendants are collectively alleged to have been responsible for the importation into the United States of massive quantities of poison, including cocaine, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and heroin, as well as associated acts of violence," the DOJ said.
What they're saying: "As President Trump has made clear, cartels are terrorist groups, and this Department of Justice is devoted to destroying cartels and transnational gangs," Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.
A federal judge ordered the Office of Personnel Management on Thursday to revoke instructions to fire probationary government workers across several agencies.
The big picture: The ruling fromU.S. District Judge William Alsup, which found that the firings were likely illegal, poses one of the largest hurdles yet to President Trump's goal of shrinking the federal workforce.
Driving the news: Alsup instructed OPM to rescind the Jan. 20 memo and Feb. 14 email that directed government agencies, like the Department of Defense and the Park Service, to identify which employees should be terminated.
Alsup said in San Francisco federal court that "Congress has given the authority to hire and fire to the agencies themselves," per the Washington Post. "The Department of Defense, for example, has statutory authority to hire and fire," he continued.
"The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees at another agency," he added. "They can hire and fire their own employees."
Zoom in: The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by unions and advocacy organizations,spearhead by the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents federal workers.
They argued OPM broke the law in ordering agencies to terminate all probationary employees.
"OPM, the federal agency charged with implementing this nation's employment laws, in one fell swoop has perpetrated one of the most massive employment frauds in the history of this country, telling tens of thousands of workers that they are being fired for performance reasons, when they most certainly were not," attorneys for the unions said in a court filing.
What they're saying: "We know this decision is just a first step, but it gives federal employees a respite," said Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), one of the suit's plaintiffs, in a statement.
"While they work to protect public health and safety, federal workers have faced constant harassment from unelected billionaires and anti-union extremists whose only goal is to give themselves massive tax breaks at the expense of working people," Saunders added.
"We will continue to move this case forward with our partners until federal workers are protected against these baseless terminations."
The White House and OPM did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment in the evening.
The Trump administration is axing 92% in foreign assistance-related grants to save nearly $60 billion as part of a budget cuts drive across all federal agencies, the State Department confirmed on Wednesday night.
The big picture: It plans to terminate nearly 10,000 contracts and grants given out by the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), per a Wednesday court filing from administration attorneys.
It's the administration's latest effort to cap U.S. spending abroad, after a federal judge this month ordered the administration to resume $1.9 billion in foreign aid payments it had frozen — which the Supreme Court temporarily paused on Wednesday night.
The impacts of the freeze on aid have been felt by organizations across the globe, as have the firings at USAID, despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing waivers for "life-saving humanitarian assistance programs."
Driving the news: Nearly 5,800 USAID awards and another 4,100 from the State Department will be cut, the filing states.
Some 500 USAID awards and about 2,700 State Department ones will remain.
"USAID evaluated 6,200 multi-year awards with $58.2 billion in value remaining," a State Department spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
Zoom in: The State Department conducted a 90-day review of foreign assistance at the State Department and USAID that saw it examine 9,100 grants valued at $15.9 billion, the Washington Free Beacon first reported.
"At the conclusion of a process led by USAID leadership, including tranches personally reviewed" by Rubio, the State Department spokesperson said "nearly 5,800 awards with $54 billion in value remaining were identified for elimination as part of the America First agenda."
What we're watching: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts granted a stay and requested aid groups that sued the administration respond by 12 noon Friday ET.
Meanwhile, the State Department and USAID is set to undergo a process in consultation with Congress to reform the way the U.S. delivers foreign assistance.
President Trump announced Tuesday the administration plans to offer $5 million "gold cards," which grant individuals permanent U.S. residency.
The big picture: The new system would replace the existing EB-5 program — a system launched in 1990 that offers green cards to individuals who invested in the U.S. — and serve as a route to citizenship, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
It wasn't immediately clear whether the administration could terminate or change the existing program without congressional approval.
Driving the news: "We're going to be selling a gold card," Trump said, adding that he believes it will bolster the economy.
"Wealthy people will be coming into our country by buying this card, they'll be wealthy and they'll be successful, and they'll be spending a lot of money and paying a lot of taxes and employing a lot of people."
The U.S. could sell 1 million or more of the "gold cards," Trump said.
Between the lines: By potentially eliminating the EB-5 program and replacing it with the so-called "gold card," the new program would effectively let the wealthy buy their way into the U.S. without having to create jobs or build businesses.
In that sense, it differs from many "Golden Visa" programs around the world, which usually require the purchase of real estate or some other domestic investment. Some do allow residency by charitable donation, or opening a bank account.
Zoom in: The minimum investment needed under the U.S. plan would also be one of the most expensive such programs in the world, per firms that specialize in helping arrange visa deals for the rich.
The new offer continues an early theme of the Trump administration, which is that money is the way to dispense with the usual rules — as when he promised anyone investing $1 billion in the U.S. would get all their permits expedited.
Justice Clarence Thomas issued a scathing dissent Monday after the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging free speech rights around abortion clinics, suggesting he wants to revisit the matter after the court ended the federal constitutional right to abortion in 2022.
The big picture: The high court's move marked a loss for abortion opponents who claimed their First Amendment rights are violated by laws that limit demonstrations near clinics.
The Supreme Court majority did not explain their decision Monday in finding that the rules were in line with precedent set byHill v. Colorado (2000). In that case, the high court held that the restrictions on speech-related conduct are constitutional because they regulate the places where some speech may occur, and not the speech itself.
Zoom in: Both Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissented, but only the former conservative justice filed writing explaining his reasoning.
Thomas argued against the high court's decision not to revisit precedent set in Hill v. Colorado (2000), which upheld free speech in buffer zones around abortion clinics.
"I would have taken this opportunity to explicitly overrule Hill," he wrote in his dissent.
He argued the court erroneously treated the Hill case differently than others pertaining to the First Amendment because abortion was involved, writing, "Hill's abortion exceptionalism turned the First Amendment upside down."
State of play: The case in questionon Monday, Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, originated in Carbondale, Illinois, where local officials passed an ordinance prohibiting protesters from getting within 8 feet of patients at the clinic without consent.
The ordinance, which reflected precedent upheld inHill, was repealed last year but an anti-abortion group based in Missouri proceeded with a lawsuit against it, taking aim at similar laws across the country.
Carbondale is located near Illinois' southern border and became a destination for people in nearby states that ban abortions.
Zoom out: In Hill, the high court upheld a state law "restricting peaceful speech" within 100 feet of abortion clinics, Thomas wrote in his dissent. He was on the high court at the time Hill was decided and dissented in the 6-3 decision.
He argued that errors in the case "were numerous" and that the decision "contradicted more than a half-century of well-established First Amendment principles."
He wrote: "This Court had never—and since Hill, has never—taken such a narrow view of content-based speech restrictions."
Thomas said the Hill case "manipulated this Court's First Amendment jurisprudence precisely to disfavor 'opponents of abortion' and their 'right to persuade women contemplating abortion that what they are doing is wrong.'"
Between the lines: Thomas noted that he wants to revisit Hill in order to give clarity to lower courts, "who feel bound by it," particularly after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.
"Following our repudiation in Dobbs,I do not see what is left of Hill," he wrote.
"Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty," Thomas wrote.
The Trump administration is rolling back protections for Haitian migrants in the U.S., allowing hundreds of thousands of people to be targeted for deportations this summer, the Department of Homeland said Thursday.
The big picture: The move is a part of President Trump's vow to crack down on illegal immigration, and comes after he amplified baseless claims about the Haitian American community on the campaign trail.
Trump said at the time that he'd end Temporary Protect Status (TPS) designations for Haitians as he and his surrogates spread false information about Haitian immigrants in Ohio.
Driving the news: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem vacated a decision Thursday from the Biden administration to extend Haitians TPS by 18 months.
Former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had extended TPS for Haitians until February 2026 before Trump took office.
Noem's move ends TPS eligibility for an estimated 520,000 Haitians as of Aug. 3, 2025, unless extended.
Zoom in: TPS shields immigrants who entered the U.S. without authorization or overstayed visas.
In addition to being safe from deportation, TPS recipients qualify for work permits and can also pursue asylum while they have TPS.
Only people from certain countries qualify for the program.
What they're saying: A DHS spokesperson said in a statement that President Biden and Mayorkas "attempted to tie the hands of the Trump administration by extending Haiti's Temporary Protected Status by 18 months—far longer than justified or necessary."
The spokesperson added: "President Trump and Secretary Noem are returning TPS to its original status: temporary."
Flashback: Trump attempted to end TPS designations for several countries during his first term.
However, a federal judge's injunction stopped the change as a court battle played out. A three-judge appeals court panel sided with Trump, but the decision was appealed again, so TPS remained in place. Biden later reversed Trump's decision.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture said Tuesday that it's working to reverse the firing of agency personnel tasked with the federal response to the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI).
The big picture: The bird flu crisis in the U.S. is in a troubling new phase as the outbreak intensifies and the Trump administration maintains a pause on some external federal health agency communications.
Driving the news: "Several job categories, including veterinarians, animal health technicians, and other emergency response personnel have been exempted from the recent personnel actions to continue to support the HPAI response and other animal health priorities," the USDA said in an emailed statement Tuesday evening.
"Although several positions supporting HPAI were notified of their terminations over the weekend, we are working to swiftly rectify the situation and rescind those letters," the agency continued in the statement first shared with NBC News.
The USDA sad it's Food Safety and Inspection Service frontline positions are considered public safety positions, and we are continuing to hire the workforce necessary to ensure the safety and adequate supply of food to fulfill our statutory mission.
The agency did not immediately respond to a question on how many personnel were impacted.
The Justice Department on Friday evening moved to drop bribery and fraud charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
Why it matters: At least seven prosecutors resigned this week rather than obey a DOJ order to withdraw the indictment, with some criticizing department leadership for making the decision for political rather than legal reasons.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove reportedly pulled the DOJ's remaining public integrity prosecutors into a room and warned them that if one didn't agree to file the motion dismissing the charges within an hour, they could all be fired.
Driving the news: Two prosecutors ultimately did file the request with Judge Dale E. Ho asking for a dismissal of the case "without prejudice," meaning the charges could later be reinstated.
The request, signed by Bove, argues the indictment interferes with the mayor's ability to do his job, including with regard to immigration.
They also said they find the dismissal necessary "because of appearances of impropriety and risks of interference with the 2025 elections in New York City," per the letter.
Judges have little leeway to deny such requests, though Ho had repeatedly denied Adams' efforts to dismiss the case, the NYT reports.
State of play: The request follows the resignations of at least seven top prosecutors in New York City and Washington, D.C., all of whom refused to follow the DOJ's order.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove asked prosecutors on Monday to drop Adams' charges, which Trump has cast as political persecution much like the criminal cases against himself.
Bove justified the decision in part because withdrawing the charges would make it more likely that Adams would comply with the Trump administration's immigration policies, according to two of the resignation letters.
Adams then appeared in two joint interviews with Trump's immigration czar, Tom Homan, and promised to do just that.
Flashback: Adams in September became the first NYC mayor to face criminal charges while serving in office.
He was indicted on charges of bribery and fraud following a federal investigation that his campaign illegally conspired with foreign businesspeople and Turkish officials.
He had denied all accusations and pleaded not guilty. He was scheduled to go to trial in April.
What they're saying: The DOJ order "allowed the Department of Justice to continue to bring those charges back and effectively, seemingly were designed to keep Eric Adams on a short leash," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told Spectrum News earlier Friday.
"That's a very troubling situation."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said on X Adams must be removed, if he won't resign, also before the DOJ dismissed his case.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has the power to remove the mayor from his role. She said Friday that she needed time to weigh the situation.
At least seven federal prosecutors resigned rather than comply with an order to dismiss corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams — an unprecedented exodus that includes veteran lawyers with deep conservative credentials.
Why it matters: This was perhaps the most dramatic battle yet between the Trump loyalists taking the reins across Washington and the career civil servants attempting to hold the line against alleged overreach.
It ended with Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove pulling the DOJ's remaining public integrity prosecutors into a room and warning them that if one didn't agree to file the motion dismissing the charges within an hour, they could all be fired, Reuters reports.
One prosecutor finally agreed to do so under duress, per Reuters.
The DOJ declined to comment Friday.
How it happened: U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon resigned Thursday rather than comply with an order from Bove to drop the corruption charges against Adams.
Bove, who previously worked on Trump's personal legal team and had already tussled with acting FBI leadership over a potential purge of agents who worked on Trump-related cases, argued that clearing the charges would allow Adams to comply with Trump's immigration policies.
Sassoon, who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia and is a member of the conservative Federalist Society, skewered those political motivations in a lengthy resignation letter.
Bove accepted the resignation, writing: "In no valid sense do you uphold the Constitution by disobeying direct orders implementing the policy of a duly elected President, and anyone romanticizing that behavior does a disservice to the nature of this work and the public's perception of our efforts."
But Sassoon was far from alone.
John Keller, the acting chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, and Kevin Driscoll, the acting head of the DOJ's criminal division, also swiftly resigned.
At least four more resignations have followed, including that of Hagan Scotten, an assistant U.S. attorney with the Southern District of New York.
"No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives," Scotten wrote in his own resignation letter.
He added: "If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me."
He promised to collaborate with Trump's immigration enforcement policies and skirted a question about the possibility New York Gov. Kathy Hochul will remove him from office.
Adams was indicted last year on charges of bribery and fraud following a federal investigation into allegations that his campaign had illegally conspired with wealthy foreign businesspeople and Turkish officials to collect donations.
The pause on the Trump administration's deferred resignation program was lifted by a federal judge on Wednesday.
Why it matters: It's a win for President Trump as he pushes to overhaul the civil service and make large-scale cuts to the federal workforce.
Driving the news: U.S. District Judge George A. O'Toole wrote in his ruling that a lawsuit from the union challenging the program could not succeed because they lack standing and his court doesn't have jurisdiction.
O'Toole had issued a temporary restraining order against the Office of Personnel Management last week to pause the program.
Context: The buyout deal was sent to all federal workers last month in an email entitled "A fork in the road," encouraging them to resign.
The deal, conceived with Elon Musk's input, is a part of the Trump administration's broader purge of the federal workforce.
Trump signed an executive order this week requiring federal agencies to work with the Musk-led DOGE to make "large-scale" workforce reductions.
Where it stands: Some 75,000 workers have taken the deal, the Office of Personnel Management said Wednesday evening.
The deadline for workers to respond to the buyout deal had been extended while this case was in play.
It's now unclear what the deadline is for workers to respond to the "buyout" offer.
OPM told Axios a new deadline will be announced shortly.
What they're saying: White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement the Boston buyout ruling "is the first of many legal wins" for Trump.
"The Court dissolved the injunction due to a lack of standing. This goes to show that lawfare will not ultimately prevail over the will of 77 million Americans who supported President Trump and his priorities," she added.
Office of Personnel Management spokesperson McLaurine Pinover said in a statement the OPM is "pleased the court has rejected a desperate effort" to strike down the Deferred Resignation Program.
"This program was carefully designed, thoroughly vetted, and provides generous benefits so federal workers can plan for their futures," Pinover said.
The other side: "Today's ruling is a setback in the fight for dignity and fairness for public servants," said Everett Kelley, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, one of the plaintiffs in the suit.
"But it's not the end of that fight. AFGE's lawyers are evaluating the decision and assessing next steps," Kelley added in a statement.
Kelleynoted that Wednesday's decision does not address "the underlying lawfulness of the program."
President Trump on Tuesday alleged judges are trying to stop the administration from seeking out corruption amid attacks on the power of the judicial branch to curb orders from the executive.
The big picture: While influential voices like Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, Elon Musk and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have started calling for the power of courts to be restricted, others in the GOP are pushing back.
The pressure against the court systems comes as some of Trump's executive orders have been met with legal challenges, none of which have resulted in a win in court for him just yet.
Driving the news: During a news briefing at the Oval Office alongside Musk on Tuesday, Trump said: "It seems hard to believe that judges want to try and stop us from looking for corruption."
He added, "It seems hard to believe that a judge could say, 'We don't want you to do that,' so maybe we have to look at the judges because I think that's a very serious violation."
Musk then accused the judge of being corrupt on X Saturday, calling for him to be impeached immediately.
Without specifically addressing the situation, Vance said on X the following day, "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."
Rep. Eli Crane said on X Tuesday he's drafted articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer for Manhattan, calling his actions Saturday to limit the DOGE's access to the Treasury's sensitive personal data "judicial overreach."
Speaker Johnson joined in on the chorus Tuesday, saying the courts should take a "step back" from the challenges to Musk and DOGE's efforts to transform the federal government and "allow these processes to play out."
Zoom out: Some Republican lawmakers are starting to push back on the attacks against judges and the court system, and are defending checks and balances.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Monday, "We've got a system of checks and balances, and that's what I see working," per ABC News. "I learned in eighth grade civics about checks and balances, and I just expect the process to work its way out," he added.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said courts play an important role and among the three branches of government "the judiciary is the one that resolves some of the differences that often occur between executive and legislative branches."
He said the judiciary has moderated both executive and congressional decisions over recent years and that he expects that to continue, per ABC.
