To stop leaks, the Trump administration wants federal workers to sign NDAs

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner prays during a Cabinet meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington on Feb. 26, 2025, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also bows his head. Pool photo/AP hide caption toggle caption Pool photo/AP As massive immigration enforcement actions were underway in Minnesota this January, the Department of Homeland Security released a video that, at first glance, appeared to resemble a cinematic trailer. Set to the singer Lorde's haunting cover of "Everybody Wants to Rule the World," the footage unfolds in a sequence of eerie juxtapositions: a helicopter hovering in green night-vision haze, armed agents battering doors and bodies moving with choreographed urgency. Across the screen a quote from the Gospel of Matthew: "Blessed are the peacemakers." Moments later, after more imagery of military-style immigration enforcement actions, the rest of the biblical passage materializes: "for they shall be called the sons of God." "My first thought was, there is a gun called the Peacemaker," said Dyron Daughrity, a minister in the evangelical Church of Christ and dean of religion and philosophy at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. "It's sort of this idea of peace through strength." Scripture has long been a rhetorical resource for presidents—Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George W. Bush among them—who invoke the Bible to frame moments of national crisis or purpose. But the Trump Administration references the Bible in a very different way – using specific passages to connect its policies and actions with God's will – from immigration enforcement to military action. The Bible's place in political life appears to be on the rise. A study released by Pew Research this month found something new among those surveyed. For the first time since Pew's been asking the question, a majority of those surveyed say that the Bible should have a great deal or at least some influence on U.S. laws, with 28% saying that when the Bible and the will of the people conflict, the Bible should have more influence over laws. For Daughrity, the imagery in the DHS video is striking but not unprecedented. "It's very common for armies, militaries just throughout history to invoke the name of God, to invoke the name of Jesus Christ," he said. The pairing of biblical language with force, in that sense, belongs to a long and familiar tradition. Others see something more intentional—and more troubling. Yii-Jan Lin, a professor of New Testament at Yale Divinity School and author of the book Immigration and Apocalypse, views the video as a calculated provocation. "DHS is causing surprise for a certain reason—to make a statement: that whatever Homeland Security is doing is to create peace, even if it looks violent," she said. To some scholars of Christianity, that framing comes at a serious cost by undermining some of the core ethical teachings of Jesus. The Rev. John Dickson, who teaches at Wheaton College near Chicago, points to the broader context of the verse itself: the Sermon on the Mount. "The opening line of the whole Sermon on the Mount—the Beatitudes—is 'blessed are the poor in spirit,'" he said. "It sets the whole thing against that discussion of how one takes the kingdom: through meekness, peacemaking, humility, love." These words, he says, stand in stark opposition to DHS actions. For Obery Hendricks, an ordained elder in the African Methodist Episcopal Church who teaches religion at Columbia University, the dissonance is both aesthetic and religious. "To use that song 'Everybody Wants to Rule the World,' what they're saying is, 'Yes, we are building an empire,'" he said. Loading... This fusion of scripture and statecraft extends to other parts of the Trump Administration. Among its most religiously outspoken figures is Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, an evangelical who's written a book titled American Crusade. He has freq

GOP Pushback On Trump, DNC 2024 Election Autopsy Report, Trump's Interest In Cuba Download Embed Good morning. You're reading the Up First newsletter. Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox, and listen to the Up First podcast for all the news you need to start your day. Today's top stories Congress is preparing to leave town for a weeklong recess without passing a Republican-backed plan to fund immigration enforcement for the next three years. This is a top priority for President Trump, who told congressional Republicans he wanted additional funding approved by June 1. Trump's $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization" fund may derail the deadline. The fund aims to compensate people who say they have been targeted by the government. It's not included in the immigration enforcement measure, but some Senate Republicans wanted to address it before passing the funding. Discord also appears to be growing among House Republicans, who called off a vote last night on a resolution limiting the president's war powers. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., spoke to reporters in the Capitol on May 19. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images North America hide caption toggle caption Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images North America 🎧 A number of Republican senators said they were blindsided by the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" announcement, NPR's Barbara Sprunt tells Up First. The money hasn't been appropriated by Congress. Sprunt says Senate Republicans were on the verge of passing the immigration enforcement funding, but some withdrew their support over concerns about the $1.8 billion fund and Trump's White House ballroom plans. The ballroom was initially expected to be covered by private donations. After the shooting at the correspondents' dinner, plans shifted to transform it into a secure facility, and costs have since soared to about a billion dollars. Trump wanted Congress to pay for its additional security. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who lost his primary this week, publicly denounced funding for the ballroom and criticized the anti-weaponization fund. Sprunt now wonders whether the GOP is entering a new chapter in which members feel emboldened to challenge the president rather than hesitate.➡️ Two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, have filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" is illegal and dangerous. It's widely expected that some of the money would go to Jan. 6 insurrectionists. The Democratic National Committee yesterday released an external review of its 2024 campaign losses to identify lessons for 2026 and beyond. DNC Chairman Ken Martin is facing internal criticism for shelving the report after he received it in December 2025. Martin has apologized for not releasing the report and for not being more transparent about the decision. But he also said he disavows the report, which was delivered incomplete. The 192-page document, written by Paul Rivera, a Democratic consultant unaffiliated with the Biden and Harris campaigns, lacks key sections, including a conclusion and an executive summary. 🎧 The report is full of incorrect claims that can't be verified, NPR's Stephen Fowler says. The DNC released the report with a disclaimer that it was not provided with "the underlying sourcing, interviews, or supporting data for many of the assertions contained herein." The report barely mentions voter concerns such as the cost of living, the conflict in Gaza and former President Joe Biden's age. Despite this, Fowler says it highlights an important disconnect: While voters may disapprove of the DNC and national party leaders, they still support their local Democrats and candidates. This dynamic suggests the national party will likely be weak heading into the 2028 presidential nomina

State troopers remove people from the Tennessee House gallery on Thursday during a special session of the state legislature to redraw congressional voting maps. George Walker IV/AP hide caption toggle caption George Walker IV/AP Tennessee Republicans have passed a new congressional map that would crack Memphis' Shelby County into three different districts, in an effort to eliminate the state's lone remaining Democratic-held seat. Currently, Tennessee is represented by eight Republicans and one Democrat. The district that includes Memphis is majority Black, and Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee called a special legislative session to consider a new congressional map after the U.S. Supreme Court last week weakened the Voting Rights Act's protections against racial discrimination in redistricting. Thursday's legislative votes came amid protests at the state capitol, and after a walkout by Democrats. State Rep. Justin Pearson, a Memphis Democrat, called the new district maps "racist tools of white supremacy" in House testimony. Tennessee GOP lawmakers defended the new map, saying their goal is partisan, to send an all-Republican delegation to Washington, D.C. President Trump has urged Tennessee and other GOP-led states to redraw their maps before this fall's midterm elections, as part of his mid-decade redistricting push. Earlier Thursday, Tennessee Gov. Lee signed a bill that repealed a state law prohibiting mid-decade redistricting. Republican lawmakers in other southern states, including Louisiana and Alabama, are moving to eliminate other majority-Black, Democratic-held districts in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. Before last week's ruling, Republicans likely held a narrow lead in mid-decade redistricting — creating districts they can more easily flip to their side — by a few seats over Democratic counter-efforts. Now that lead could double, to perhaps six or seven seats. And that's if a pro-Democratic redistricting measure approved by voters in Virginia holds up in state court. With reporting by WPLN's Marianna Bacallao

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick arrives for a deposition as part of the House Oversight Committee's investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, at the Capitol in Washington, on Wednesday, May 6, 2026. J. Scott Applewhite/AP hide caption toggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Wednesday was grilled by Democrats and members of his own party during a closed-door hearing before the House Oversight Committee, over his relationship with the convicted sex offender — and his former neighbor — Jeffrey Epstein. Despite conflicting statements Lutnick had previously made about the duration and nature of his friendship with Epstein, who was accused of sex trafficking women and girls, Rep. James Comer, Republican chair of the Oversight Committee described Lutnick's account during the hearing as "forthcoming," while committee Democrats cast the secretary's testimony as evasive. Speaking to reporters ahead of the hearing, Comer said Lutnick's inconsistent narrative about whether he'd been on Epstein's infamous island "wasn't 100% truthful." But, according to committee Democrats who spoke to reporters after the closed-door session, Comer ultimately determined that the Trump appointee had committed no wrongdoing. "There's only so many questions you can ask Howard Lutnick, who had a property next door to Epstein in New York," Comer told reporters while Democrats questioned Lutnick. The committee chair insisted that the two had spoken and interacted on only three occasions over a decade. "He's been very forthcoming with those interactions," Comer said. "We're bringing in some of the richest and most powerful people in the world. We're doing everything in our ability to get answers." he added. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., speaks to reporters on Wednesday before questioning Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as part of the panel's investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, at the Capitol in Washington. J. Scott Applewhite/AP hide caption toggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP Several democrats emerged from the hearing outraged by Comer's take, and accused Lutnick of outright lying. "What we heard was hours of testimony where Lutnick was attempting to redefine the meaning of the word 'I,' " Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Va., told reporters after the hearing. "He claims that when he said, 'I would never be in a room again with Jeffrey Epstein,' he meant only him and Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein was so gross to him that he wasn't willing to be in a room with him, but he was perfectly OK with his wife and family being in a room with Epstein," Walkinshaw said, adding that the hearing should have been televised so that the American public could "see the sweat on his brow" as Lutnick answered questions. California Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna called Lutnick's testimony "embarrassing" and described his responses as "contortions and lies." "Now we know why that interview was not videotaped," Khanna said. "If Donald Trump had seen the video transcript, he would've fired Howard Lutnick." Comer, meanwhile, insisted Lutnick would be held accountable for any misstatements he may have made: "It's a felony to lie to Congress," he said. James Marsh, an attorney representing some of Epstein's victims, did not attend the hearing but said in a statement that while Lutnick's hearing offers "a step towards potential clarity," it "does not provide any real substance for identifying" alleged perpetrators of Epstein's network. "Past proceedings and depositions have repeatedly failed to even name, let alone hold accountable, those who carried out or enabled Epstein's crimes," Marsh said. He added: "Every single member of his criminal enterprise must finally face the full force of justice; survivors deserve more than performative oversight. After being silenced for decades, their courage should not be met with more confusion or political rigmarole, but with the accountability the

2 days agoKayla EpsteinRoll Call via Getty ImagesNearly a week after a suspect allegedly tried to assassinate President Donald Trump at a press gala, key details about the shooting remain unclear.As the investigation has evolved, prosecutors' statements have changed on whether the suspect shot a US Secret Service officer as gunfire rang out at the Washington Hilton last Saturday.The president and other top officials have said a Secret Service officer was shot as the attacker charged a security checkpoint at the hotel, and that he survived thanks to a bulletproof vest.But court documents filed by government attorneys do not explicitly allege the accused shot an officer on the night of the White House Correspondents' Association dinner.The Secret Service officer also fired five times on the suspect as he charged, authorities said, but did not strike him.CCTV appears to capture moment of gunfire at Washington correspondents' dinner"There's this insatiable public interest in the case, pressure to get information out to the public," Mark Lesko, a former US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, told the BBC."But on the other hand, you want to conduct a thorough investigation, which could take weeks in a case like this."It was understandable that law enforcement could make contradictory public statements in the heat of such a high-profile investigation, Lesko said.But any inaccuracies could open the door for defence attorneys to poke holes in the case, he warned.The BBC has contacted the justice department for comment.The Secret Service and US Attorney's office for the District of Columbia declined to comment.The public first learned from Trump that a Secret Service Officer had been shot.He told reporters at a Saturday news conference that the agent "was shot from very close distance with a very powerful gun".Trump jokes he would not wear bulletproof vest: “I don’t know if I can handle looking 20lbs heavier"An affidavit issued by the justice department that night named Cole Tomas Allen, 31, as the suspect, and listed the charges against him, including that he discharged a firearm.Allen, who is in custody, was armed with a semi-automatic handgun, a pump-action shotgun and three knives, according to authorities.On Sunday, Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche was asked on CBS News if the alleged assailant had shot the Secret Service agent."That's what we understand as of now," Blanche replied.But at a news conference on Monday, he retreated from that stance. A reporter asked him again who had shot the officer."We wanna get that right, so we're still looking at that," Blanche said.It appeared, he said, that five shots in total were fired during the incident.Blanche said the suspect "fired out of a shotgun, and we know that happened".He added that the ballistics were still being "looked at and finalised".The same day, the government unveiled its criminal complaint against Allen.It stated that the accused "approached and ran through the magnetometer holding a long gun"."As he did so, US Secret Service personnel assigned to the checkpoint heard a loud gunshot."US Secret Service Officer V.G. was shot once in the chest; Officer V.G. was wearing a ballistic vest at the time."Prosecutors do not specifically allege that Allen shot the officer, however."That is interesting and noteworthy because what it shows is the government does not yet have conclusive proof that the suspect did shoot the agent," Lesko said.The legal expert also noted that prosecutors have not charged Allen with assaulting a Secret Service officer, although Blanche has said the justice department could file more counts.Neither did a government filing for Allen's detention on Wednesday contain any reference to a Secret Service officer being shot.It said a Secret Service officer had "observed the defendant fire the shotgun in the direction of the stairs leading down to the ballroom".But the government does not say whether Allen's alleged shot struck anyone.Watch: 'Ar

50 minutes agoGetty ImagesUS lawmakers have voted to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ending a 76-day partial government shutdown over the federal agency's immigration enforcement operations. Members of the US House of Representatives approved a Senate-passed bill via voice vote, restoring funding to much of DHS and concluding the longest shutdown in the agency's history.The federal agency has continued to run without routine funds since 14 February, leading to major disruptions and hours-long wait times at airports across the US.The measure, supported by President Donald Trump, reopens DHS but does not include new funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or US Border Patrol. The bill now goes to the president who is expected to swiftly sign the legislation.This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.