Sunday, August 30, 2026
Saturday, August 29, 2026
The Quiet Disappearance of Black History in Higher Ed
African American Studies Department are Dwindling Across U.S. Colleges
"More than 12 private colleges and public universities have either reduced or eliminated Black programs studies departments and majors.
Fact-Checking Senate Races in Georgia, Alaska and Texas
Fact-Checking Senate Races in Georgia, Alaska and Texas
Candidates’ attacks are focused on illegal immigration, faith and stock trading.
Control of the Senate will hinge on a handful of competitive races this November, with nominees of both parties honing talking points to hammer their opponents.
In Georgia, a Republican congressman has sought to attack the incumbent Democratic senator on his immigration record. In Alaska, the Democratic challenger has emphasized the stock trades and ballooning personal wealth of the sitting Republican senator. And in Texas, the Republican nominee has highlighted statements his opponent has made about Christianity.
Here is a look at those claims.
What Was Said
“He voted against the Laken Riley Act when he had the chance to save lives.”
— Representative Mike Collins, Republican nominee for Senate in Georgia, in a July social media post
“I worked across the aisles to get that done — with the exception of Jon Ossoff, who is the U.S. sitting senator here in Georgia who never lifted a finger to help get the Laken Riley Act across the finish line.”
— Mr. Collins in an August interview on Newsmax
False. Mr. Ossoff was one of 12 Democrats who, in January 2025, voted yes on the Laken Riley Act, the first piece of legislation signed into law by President Trump upon his return to the White House. The law directs law enforcement to detain and deport unauthorized immigrants accused of specific crimes.
The legislation was inspired by the 2024 murder of Laken Riley, a nursing student in Georgia, by an immigrant who illegally entered the United States.
In 2024, right after Ms. Riley’s death, Mr. Collins introduced an earlier version that passed the House. But the Senate, controlled by Democrats at the time, never considered the legislation.
In 2025, Republicans had more success and the measure passed both chambers with bipartisan support. Some Democrats argued that the measure undermined due process and wasted resources, but Mr. Ossoff and other vulnerable Democrats backed the bill.
A spokesman for Mr. Collins’s campaign asserted that Mr. Ossoff did not help advance or build support for the legislation for nearly a year, and only voted for it after Republicans regained the majority in Congress.
Still, Mr. Ossoff ultimately did vote for the bill, breaking with most members of his party. Moreover, as the Senate debated the measure in 2025, Mr. Ossoff signaled his support and called for bipartisan backing in an interview with CNN, saying that “we have a prospect here of working across the aisle” and that “the whole country recognizes that we’ve had a crisis at our southern border.”
Asked why he voted for the law, Mr. Ossoff said in a local radio interview at the time that Ms. Riley and her family were his constituents and her death was preventable.
“I think that Georgians and the American public are rightly fed up and frustrated with the nonenforcement of immigration law,” he said. “Now, there were some changes I would have liked to have seen made. We’re going to have to be vigilant as we move forward, that we defend our borders and enforce our immigration laws, and also be mindful of the human and civil rights of all human beings in our country.”
Mr. Collins’s spokesman also cited an earlier procedural vote Mr. Ossoff cast.
In 2024, a Republican senator introduced a procedural motion to offer an amendment to an appropriations bill. The amendment proposed that no funding provided by the bill could be used “to grant any immigration status or other benefit” to unauthorized immigrants accused of certain crimes. That is not the same thing as the enacted version of the Laken Riley Act or Mr. Collins’s own version. Mr. Ossoff, along with all other Democratic senators, voted against the motion.
What Was Said
“Twelve years in the Senate, if you can’t get it done in that amount of time, go home. We don’t want people in there making a career out of quadrupling their personal wealth.”
— Mary Peltola, Democratic nominee for Senate in Alaska, in a campaign video in August
“He’s ballooned his net worth, reporting nearly 100 stock trades while serving in office. He’s quadrupled his personal wealth.”
— Ms. Peltola, during a convention in July
This needs context. Ms. Peltola was referring to Senator Dan S. Sullivan, her Republican opponent. The value of Mr. Sullivan’s assets have increased since he joined the Senate in 2015, and he is among the more prolific stock traders in the Senate. But the exact increase is unknown as the amounts are reported in a wide range. Moreover, it appears that a significant portion of his trading and net worth can be attributed to stocks he owns in his family’s company.
Members of Congress are required to report their assets and liabilities annually in ranges. While the maximum values of assets Mr. Sullivan reported almost tripled from 2014, when he won his first Senate campaign, to 2025, it is possible that his actual wealth increased less than that. (For example, if an asset increased by just $1, that could move the asset from a reporting range of $250,001 and $500,000 to $500,001 and $1 million.)
Mr. Sullivan disclosed in 2014 that he and his wife had assets between $2 million and $4.7 million. In his latest financial statement, filed in August for the 2025 calendar year, Mr. Sullivan reported assets between $4.1 million and $12.3 million.
The largest single asset Mr. Sullivan reported across the years was stock in RPM International, a chemical company founded by his grandfather; his father and brother both served as chief executive for the firm. The value of the company’s stock — the price of which doubled from 2014 to 2025 — accounts for a significant amount of Mr. Sullivan’s increase in wealth. In 2014, he reported owning RPM stock worth between $500,001 and $1 million. That grew to between $1 million and $5 million in 2025.
Nate Adams, a spokesman for the Sullivan campaign, said that several of the senator’s assets were inherited after the deaths of Mr. Sullivan’s mother in March 2019 and his father in November 2020, as well as his wife’s parents.
“That Mary Peltola would twist a family’s loss into a false insider trading smear says everything about the type of candidate she is and the type of campaign she is running,” Mr. Adams said.
Ms. Peltola has a point that Mr. Sullivan is more active than most senators in the stock market, having made at least 120 trades worth between $950,000 and $3.5 million in stock, according to a compilation by the website Quiver Quantitative of financial disclosure forms. But the transactions involving RPM International accounted for about a quarter to a third of that amount, between $329,000 and $810,000.
A spokesman for the Peltola campaign cited recent reporting by The Alaska Current that several of Mr. Sullivan’s trades of RPM stock were “suspiciously timed,” including sales of stock before the coronavirus pandemic roiled the global economy and before the company released weak earnings reports.
What Was Said
James Talarico “recently said about Christianity — he said that ‘I’m a Christian but I hate Christianity.’ I want you to think about that. Does that make any sense at all? ‘I’m a Christian but I hate Christianity.’ He also said that ‘God is nonbinary.’ Does anybody know what that means?”
— Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, Republican nominee for Senate, in a campaign video in July
This needs context. Mr. Talarico, a state representative and Mr. Paxton’s Democratic opponent, did make those statements, but as part of longer discussions about his faith. Mr. Paxton omitted the full context of those quotations, which may give a misleading impression of what Mr. Talarico was trying to convey.
Mr. Talarico made the first statement on a 2021 podcast hosted by Roberto Che Espinoza, a transgender activist and theologian. Both expressed frustration that conservative Christian theology tended to dominate politics, while they both adhered to a more “radical faith tradition,” as Mr. Talarico put it.
Mr. Talarico spoke of the country’s “spiritual crisis” and how the left had “ceded moral language to the right for the past, what, 40, 50 years.” But he argued that “the best movements for radical change in our country, in our world, were all spiritually grounded, right? Whether it was the civil rights movement, which was explicitly Christian, right, or Gandhi’s movement in India.”
As the discussion continued, the host observed that much of politics and policy have a “particular strand of Judeo-Christian theology attached to them,” referring to the theology of conservative Republicans.
Mr. Talarico responded: “Yeah, and you know, I always think of myself as a Christian who hates Christianity. And I always get drawn back into it because nowhere else, in no other political philosophy, in no other economic theory, do I find anything as truly radical or revolutionary as the teachings of that barefoot rabbi, right?”
JT Ennis, Mr. Talarico’s press secretary, said in a statement that Mr. Talarico “obviously doesn’t hate Christianity.”
“James is a devout Christian who fights religious and political corruption when he sees it — because there’s nothing Christ-like about powerful people twisting the teachings of Jesus to justify hate, violence and greed,” he said.
Mr. Talarico made the second comment in a 2021 speech on the Texas House floor while opposing a Republican bill targeting transgender youth in school sports.
He said: “The first two lines of the Bible, the first two lines in Genesis use two different Hebrew words to describe God. One is the masculine Hebrew noun for divinity. The second is the feminine Hebrew noun for spirit. God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is nonbinary. In Genesis 1:26, God speaks of God’s self in the plural, saying, ‘Let us make human beings in our image to be like us.’ That’s the infinite multitude of God, the masculine, the feminine and everything in between. Trans children are God’s children, made in God’s own image. There’s nothing wrong with them, nothing at all.”
Asked about the comment in a May interview on CBS, Mr. Talarico said that he was being “intentionally provocative.”
“What it means is that God can’t be defined by human categories,” he said. He added that he had made statements that “missed the mark” and that he regretted, but he said that Mr. Paxton was “intentionally clipping my cringey comments to distract from his career of corruption.”
Linda Qiu is a Times reporter who specializes in fact-checking statements made by politicians and public figures. She has been reporting and fact-checking public figures for nearly a decade."
Is Donald Trump’s bid to brand Democrats as ‘radical’ communists working? | US midterm elections 2026 | The Guardian
Is Donald Trump’s bid to brand Democrats as ‘radical’ communists working?
(So many Americans are poorly educated and react to labels and that is the Republican audience. Remember in 2016 in Nevada Trump said "I love the poorly educated".)
"In deep red South Carolina, the president helped stoke apprehension of a deeper red surge ahead of November’s US midterm elections
After casting his vote in South Carolina, a man who introduced himself as Chestnut was unwilling to give his full name. “You don’t have a need to know,” the air force veteran declared. He was, however, happy to share his views.
“I’m a true American. I believe in the USA,” said the man, outside Christ the Servant Lutheran church in Conway. “And I don’t believe in communism or socialism.”
Several hundred thousand South Carolinians took part in a Republican special runoff on Tuesday, selecting the party’s nominee for US Senate after the sudden death of the veteran lawmaker Lindsey Graham. Darline, his sister, prevailed – in a victory for Donald Trump.
The US president had traveled down to South Carolina days before the vote, reaching for a familiar theme as he rallied supporters to get behind his handpicked candidate. Also on the ballot was a message that Trump has been ramping up in recent months.
“So the Democrats hate our country. They’re communists,” Trump declared at a rally in Myrtle Beach. During the speech, he mentioned communists or communism no fewer than 13 times. “They’re radical left lunatics.”
As Democrats have looked left in some primaries, nominating socialists to represent the party in November’s US midterm elections, Trump has increasingly – erroneously – claimed the party has been overrun by communists. “You can be a communist or you can be a patriot,” he said in the shadow of Mount Rushmore during the US 250th birthday celebrations this summer. “You cannot be both.”
As Trump seeks to galvanize his base ahead of November’s US midterm elections, the thoughts of voters in South Carolina, and fears of an ascendant “Communist party” on the left, offer a window into how his efforts are faring.
Chestnut was not the only voter with whom such warnings appeared to resonate. In deep red South Carolina, where no Democrat has won statewide in 20 years, there is apprehension of a deeper red surge in US politics.
“I don’t like the DSA,” Charles Rogers said, referring to the Democratic Socialists of America, as he left a polling station at Marion intermediate school. “I don’t like how the Democrats want to back them. Democrats used to be for the working man, but something’s changed … I do not agree with the DSA, and more Democrats are backing them with crazy ideas.”
While DSA members would adamantly describe themselves as standing for working people, fears of communism coming for America – fanned by Trump – were on the mind of Republican voters contemplating their choices on Tuesday, and in November.
Lee and Donna Criswell voted on Tuesday afternoon at the Lamar library in Darlington county, South Carolina. Asked what issues they viewed as politically important, Lee replied: “We’re concerned about the socialism thing going on in some parts of the country. I don’t think we have an issue regardless of whether you’re Republican or Democrat here in South Carolina, but I don’t know where it’s going, you know, in other areas.”
“We want to maintain our freedoms,” Donna added.
As Trump continues to level allegations of political “extremism” at the feet of the Democrats, his own extreme actions – from persistent election denial to the pursuit of his political enemies – continue to cause alarm in much of the country. Such concerns were not raised by Republicans in South Carolina who spoke to the Guardian this week.
Zachary Cogan, a retired army engineer voting in Lamar, called himself a transplant from the “communist state” of New York. He said he was looking for responsiveness and accountability from conservative political leaders, saying: “We’re not importing [New York City mayor Zohran] Mamdani voters into South Carolina. South Carolina has no danger of turning purple.”
Cogan thought about the political environment he left behind, and laughed. “I mean, when you have to say [US Senate minority leader] Chuck Schumer is the more moderate of the Democrats, that’s going the wrong way. OK? But why – why are the Democrats … well, you’ve got the Communist party now that is so pro-intifada.”
The victories of Mamdani in New York City, Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s US Senate primary and now Angie Nixon in Florida’s US Senate primary have been heralded by American progressives as a sign of renewed vigor for the left in Democratic politics amid the provocations of Trump’s administration.
But they have also become daily fodder for conservative cable news channels like Newsmax or Fox News, and social media accounts on Facebook and X. The fear of communism has become a driving rhetorical force on the right.
Fox and other media outlets catering to a conservative audience have been amplifying the anticommunist rhetoric of Trump, according to Brian Leiter, a law professor and director of the Center for Law, Philosophy & Human Values at the University of Chicago. Leiter co-authored a book on Karl Marx and is a keen observer of America’s history with red-baiting politics.
“Trump and Fox News work in tandem on these things. They’re mutually reinforcing,” Leiter said. “Trump understands red-baiting better than anyone, because who was his mentor? Roy Cohn. And Roy Cohn was, of course, legal counsel to Joseph McCarthy in the original purge and political persecution.”
The words “socialist” or “socialism” have been mentioned almost 6,000 times in Fox News programming since 1 January, according to a search of the Internet Archive’s database of show transcripts. The word “communist” appeared more than 1,700 times. In each case, mentions spiked sharply in May and have steadily increased, occurring about five times as often in August as they did in April.
Often, Leiter said, Fox invites on its shows members of the DSA who – unlike media-savvy Democrats like Mamdani or congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – look and sound like progressive caricatures, espousing fringe views within the Democratic party, unwilling or unable to articulate the difference between the beliefs of a democratic socialist and a committed communist.
“I gather they have been doing a lot on democratic socialism on the theory that it’ll help the Republican party,” Leiter said. “Communism has always been a bogeyman in American politics in a way it’s not in Europe, say, and it’s not helped by the fact that every self-proclaimed communist government was a disaster … None of these people – Zohran Mamdani, Bernie Sanders, AOC – none of them are communists. They’re not even close.”
But those distinctions do not seem to have generally filtered down to rank-and-file Republican voters of South Carolina. Trump’s rhetoric has landed."
Trump’s DHS is using an obscure law to secretly snoop on journalists, non-profits and unions: ‘It’s outrageous’ | Trump administration | The Guardian
Trump’s DHS is using an obscure law to secretly snoop on journalists, non-profits and unions: ‘It’s outrageous’
"Even after judges rejected the same ploy, the Trump administration is going directly to social media and telecommunications companies
The Trump administration has been deploying an obscure legal maneuver to try to obtain private information on journalists, non-profits and unions, raising alarm over a power the government has asserted without judicial oversight.
In one instance, the government obtained six months of telephone records for Georgia Fort, a Minneapolis journalist. Fort was not notified of the request for her information, nor was she given a chance to contest the government’s effort to obtain them, her lawyers said in court papers.
In February of this year, federal prosecutors twice sought search warrants for account information for the YouTube channel of Fort and the journalist Don Lemon, both of whom have pleaded not guilty to criminal charges in connection to a protest at a Minneapolis church in January that they were covering. A judge twice rejected the request, writing that the government had failed to establish probable cause of a crime and that he wanted Lemon and Fort to be informed of the request so they could have a chance to challenge it. About a month after the judge’s ruling in late February, the government said it was withdrawing the request.
But officials hadn’t given up on getting the data.
Less than a month later, the DHS served Google with a different request for the YouTube information. This time, DHS utilized a different method that didn’t require approval from a judge, only a sign-off from a DHS official. It served Google an administrative summons citing an arcane provision of federal law – 19 USC 1509 – dealing with customs imports. The provision gives the DHS broad power to inspect records in order to determine whether duties and taxes are being correctly levied on imported items. It also instructed the recipients of the summons to keep it secret.
The DHS summons was issued under a statute that does give the agency broad power to demand records, but only in the limited circumstance of there being a need to investigate a customs issue, said Chris Duncan, a former lawyer at the Department of Homeland Security. “These laws have absolutely nothing to do with a domestic situation at a church, a social media post, even an immigration matter,” he said.
“It’s outrageous conduct on so many levels. It’s hard to know where to begin,” said John Roth, who served as the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security from 2014 to 2017. “This is an improper use of the subpoena under any circumstances. This is not a customs case; it is not a customs violation. They are not investigating a customs violation.”
The episode in Minnesota was particularly alarming because it appeared to be an end run around a judge who was skeptical of the government’s need for the information.
“There is no judge in the loop. You don’t have that independent authority to scrutinize the demand and to say whether or not it’s legitimate,” said Caitlin Vogus, a senior adviser at the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
The DHS also sought and obtained six months of phone records for Fort from T-Mobile, which included records for more than 10,000 calls and text messages. Fort was not notified the government was seeking the records until mid-July, when government lawyers produced them to her lawyers. Fort’s lawyers wrote in a filing this week they were “stunned” to see the government had unilaterally been able to obtain a log of her communications after a judge had warned them about obtaining records about a journalist.
“That’s very concerning because the information demanded can help the government uncover a journalist’s confidential sources,” Vogus said.
In a statement, T-Mobile did not address why it turned over the information.
“We take our responsibility to protect customers’ privacy and personal information very seriously. Our team carefully reviews government demands for customer information and responds in accordance with the law. We don’t comment on specific law enforcement demands,” the company said.
The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security both declined to comment on the use of the summons.
In addition to Fort and Lemon, the DHS also sought information on the YouTube accounts for the left-leaning outlet Democracy Now, conservative podcaster Megyn Kelly, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and an independent journalist named Brendan Gutenschwager. Some of the videos they cited in the summons were livestreams of the protest, but not all of them. The video cited as part of the request for information on Democracy Now involved a news report on the protest and an interview with Nekima Levy Armstrong, who led the protest. The video cited on the request for Kelly’s show included an interview with Jonathan Parnell, the pastor at the church.
It’s unclear why exactly the DHS wanted the YouTube account information, which includes things like a user’s IP address, and information about when a user was logging in.
“It’s still concerning that the government sought subscriber information for Lemon and Fort because there’s no reason it would need this information for the criminal charges that it’s brought against them,” Vogus said. “It’s not a crime to post a YouTube video, and it’s not at all clear why the government is demanding this information about Lemon and Fort’s YouTube accounts.”
The episode was the most recent example of an alarming pattern in recent months in which the DHS avoided judicial scrutiny and deployed a summons related to customs enforcement to pressure companies into turning over information on Americans. The US constitution’s fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and law enforcement generally must show a judge or a grand jury they have probable cause to believe the materials they want to search will produce evidence of a crime.
But over the last few months, the Department of Homeland Security has undertaken a brazen effort to get around that fundamental safeguard. In addition to efforts to obtain records on Minnesota journalists, the DHS has used 1509 summonses to pressure social media companies to unmask the identities of people who have criticized ICE officers and to obtain financial information on a host of unions and left-leaning non-profit organizations in Minneapolis.
In a separate case in which 15 activists face criminal conspiracy charges, DHS successfully obtained the financial records of the Sunrise Movement, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Communications Workers of America, as well as Venmo records for a non-profit organization called Voices for Racial Justice. None of the organizations is charged with crimes and the DHS did not offer an explanation for why it needed the records. PayPal, Venmo’s parent company, declined to comment.
“There’s a long history of DHS abusing this summons authority in particular, and using it to seek both records that are clearly outside of its scope in general, and more particularly to try to go after people whose speech DHS is somehow irked by – but whose speech is protected by the first amendment,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union who specializes in privacy issues.
It is difficult to determine the frequency with which the DHS is serving the 1509 summonses and how often they are successful in obtaining information. The summonses often remain hidden from public view unless the company being served, or the user, challenges them. Companies are not required to notify users that they have been served with a 1509 summons for information, though some do. The New York Times reported in February that the DHS had served hundreds of administrative subpoenas on social media companies for information on users.
“Without knowing how many of these subpoenas there are and what they’re being used for, there’s no way for courts or lawmakers or the public to put checks on executive branch abuses,” said Wessler, the ACLU attorney.
In the Minneapolis church case involving Lemon and Fort, the Trump administration has argued it had the power to use the customs-related summons to obtain information even though the crimes the defendants were charged with have nothing to do with customs. The protesters entered the church because a local ICE official was a pastor there, and could have potentially assaulted him or interfered with his duties, justice department lawyers wrote in a filing earlier this year. Even though the man does not appear to have been there, and there were no DHS officials at the church or involved in the protest, lawyers said the DHS was entitled to issue the summons because it was investigating a potential assault on a law enforcement officer.
In court filings, the Trump administration has argued the Department of Homeland Security has the power to demand such records without judicial oversight.
“Although § 1509 references ‘duties, fees, and taxes,’ the plain language of the statute does not limit DHS’s investigative authority to those subjects; instead, DHS is authorized to investigate potential crimes to ensure ‘compliance with the laws of the United States administered by the United States Customs Service,’” which has been folded into the Department of Homeland Security, a lawyer wrote in a December court filing last year.
That is an overbroad misreading of the statute, one expert said.
“I don’t buy that,” said Duncan, the former DHS lawyer. “It’s not a free-for-all that was thrown in there. Congress does not operate that way. Given these provisions were specifically incorporated into title 19, the customs statute, Congress obviously intended to authorize only records, demands and interviews in furtherance of investigations into customs violations, not wild goose chases into possible violations of any federal law without any judicial oversight.”
In Fort’s case, Google did not comply with the summons for any of the accounts. The company responded to the DHS by saying it had not offered evidence of how it was related to a customs investigation.
A Google spokesperson said the company reviews each request for data it gets to ensure it is legal and pushes back when it is too broad or doesn’t follow the correct process.
Many social media companies say they notify users when law enforcement makes a request for their information and give them a chance to contest the summons. It’s not always clear what the companies will do if the user doesn’t respond or won’t contest the request themselves. But privacy experts question whether that notice is adequate, saying many users are confused when they are contacted and do not have the resources to get a lawyer to contest the demand in court.
“They want people to think that they are going to stand up for people’s privacy, but they really shifted the burden completely onto the user,” said Lauren Regan, executive director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center, which represented a Reddit user who challenged the government’s efforts to get Reddit to reveal their identity through a 1509 summons.
Companies are not required to respond to a 1509 summons and can ignore the request if they think it is unlawful, forcing the government to go to court to try to enforce the summons. The Guardian was unable to identify any cases where the government attempted to get a court order to enforce a 1509 summons outside of the traditional customs context. Companies can also file their own motions to try to quash the summonses.
“If a user actually hired a lawyer, it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to fight one of these,” said F Mario Trujillo, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy watchdog. “They are not shouldering that burden; they’re pushing that cost onto users and onto non-profit groups when they could easily get their high-powered lawyers who are being paid $500 to $1,000 an hour to fight these.”
In 2017, Twitter filed a lawsuit challenging a Department of Homeland Security 1509 summons seeking to unmask an account, @alt_uscis, that was critical of the DHS. The department ultimately withdrew the summons.
In several cases, the DHS has withdrawn a 1509 summons after it was challenged in court and before a judge could rule on its legality. That may be a deliberate strategy to avoid having a judge rule on the legality of the summons.
In one instance last year, the DHS served a 1509 summons on Meta to unmask the user behind an Instagram and Facebook account that monitored ICE agent activities in the Philadelphia suburbs. The user challenged the summons in court, saying it was clearly not authorized under the law. Lawyers for the DHS defended the summons, saying it fell within the scope of laws the DHS enforced. Both sides presented arguments before a judge on 15 January and DHS withdrew the summons the next day.
“They don’t want a judge to take away this scary tool because they are getting stuff out of it,” Regan said. “Once a court ruling says ‘thou shalt not use this statute’, it does not apply.”
In 2017, the DHS inspector general issued a report finding “inconsistent – and, in some cases, improper” – use of the 1509 summonses after the @alt_uscis case.
The office of the inspector general review found that officials in Customs and Border Protection’s office of professional responsibility were regularly misusing the subpoena and recommended a series of reforms to ensure more oversight over those that were used. The office agreed to the reforms."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)