CBS says its decision to end Stephen Colbert’s late-night comedy show is financial, not political. Yet even with the ample skepticism about that explanation, there’s no denying the economics were not working in Colbert’s favor.

The network’s bombshell announcement late Thursday that the “Late Show” will end next May takes away President Donald Trump’s most prominent TV critic and the most popular entertainment program in its genre.

The television industry’s declining economic health means similar hard calls are already being made with personalities and programming, with others to be faced in the future. For the late-night genre, there are unique factors to consider.

As recently as 2018, broadcast networks took in an estimated $439 million in advertising revenue for its late-night programs, according to the advertising firm Guidelines. Last year, that number dwindled to $220 million.

Once a draw for young men, now they’ve turned away

Late-night TV was a particular draw for young men, considered the hardest-to-get and most valuable demographic for advertisers. Increasingly, these viewers are turning to streaming services, either to watch something else entirely or catch highlights of the late-night shows, which are more difficult for the networks to monetize.

More broadly, the much-predicted takeover of viewers by streaming services is coming to pass. The Nielsen company reported that during the last two months, for the first time ever, more people consumed programming on services like YouTube and Netflix than on ABC, CBS and NBC or any cable network.

Networks and streamers spent roughly $70 billion on entertainment shows and $30 billion for sports rights last year, said Brian Wieser, CEO of Madison & Wall, an advertising consultant and data services firm. Live sports is the most dependable magnet for viewers and costs for its rights are expected to increase 8% a year over the next decade. With television viewership declining in general, it’s clear where savings will have to come from.

Wieser said he does not know whether Colbert’s show is profitable or not for CBS and parent company Paramount Global, but he knows the direction in which it is headed. “The economics of television are weak,” he said.

In a statement announcing the cancellation, George Cheeks, Paramount Global’s president and chief executive officer, said that “This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.”

Cheeks’ problem is that not everyone believes him.

Colbert is a relentless critic of Trump, and earlier this week pointedly criticized Paramount’s decision to settle Trump’s lawsuit against CBS over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris. He called Paramount’s $16 million payment to Trump a “big fat bribe,” since the company is seeking the administration’s approval of its merger with Skydance Media.

On Friday, the Writers Guild of America called for an investigation by New York’s attorney general into whether Colbert’s cancellation is itself a bribe, “sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval.”

CBS’ decision made this a pivotal week for the future of television and radio programming. Congress stripped federal funding for PBS and NPR, threatening the future of shows on those outlets.

Journey Gunderson, executive director of the National Comedy Center, called the decision to end Colbert’s show the end of an era.

“Late-night television has historically been one of comedy’s most audience-accessible platforms — a place where commentary meets community, night after night,” Gunderson said. “This isn’t just the end of a show. It’s the quiet removal of one of the few remaining platforms for daily comedic commentary.

Trump celebrates Colbert’s demise

Trump, who has called in the past for CBS to terminate Colbert’s contract, celebrated the show’s upcoming demise. “I absolutely love that Colbert got fired,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “His talent was even less than his ratings.”

Some experts questioned whether CBS could have explored other ways to save money on Colbert. NBC, for example, has cut costs by eliminating the band on Seth Meyers’ late-night show and curtailing Jimmy Fallon’s “Tonight” show to four nights a week.

Could CBS have saved more money by cutting off the show immediately, instead of letting it run until next May, which sets up an awkward “lame duck” period? Then again, Colbert will keep working until his contract runs out; CBS would have had to keep paying him anyway.

CBS recently cancelled the “After Midnight” show that ran after Colbert. But the network had signaled earlier this year that it was prepared to continue that show until host Taylor Tomlinson decided that she wanted to leave, noted Bill Carter, author of “The Late Shift.”

“It is a very sad day for CBS that they are getting out of the late-night race,” Andy Cohen, host of Bravo’s “Watch What Happens Live,” told The Associated Press. “I mean, they are turning off the lights after the news.”

Colbert, if he wanted to continue past next May, would likely be able to find a streaming service willing to pay him, Wieser said. But the future of late-night comedy on the entertainment networks is genuinely at risk. Trump, in fact, may outlast his fiercest comic critics. Jon Stewart, once a weeknight fixture, works one night a week at “The Daily Show” for Paramount’s Comedy Central, a network that seldom produces much original programming any more.

ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel, who was chided on social media by Trump on Friday — “I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next” — has a contract that also runs out next year. Kimmel, 57, openly wondered in a Variety interview before signing his latest three-year contract extension how long he wanted to do it. He’s hosted his show since 2003.

“I have moments where I go, I cannot do this anymore,” Kimmel told Variety in 2022. “And I have moments where I go, what am I gonna do with my life if I’m not doing this anymore?’ It’s a very complicated thing … I’m not going to do this forever.”

Colbert, Kimmel and Stewart were all nominated for Emmy awards this week.

AP journalist Liam McEwan in Los Angeles contributed to this report. David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social.

The state of New York agreed Friday to pay $450,000 to settle a lawsuit from an ex-aide to former Gov. Andrew Cuomo who alleged Cuomo sexually harassed and groped her while he was in office.

The former aide, Brittany Commisso, had sued Cuomo and the state, alleging sexual harassment from the then-governor and retaliation against her after reporting the incidents. The allegations were part of a barrage similar misconduct claims that forced Cuomo to resign as governor in 2021.

Commisso’s lawyers said the settlement “is a complete vindication of her claims” and that Commisso is “glad to be able to move forward with her life.”

The settlement came as Cuomo is in the midst of a so-far bruising political comeback with a run for mayor of New York City. Cuomo lost the Democratic primary last month to Zohran Mamdani by more than 12 percentage points and this week relaunched his campaign to run in the general election as an independent candidate, beginning a potentially uphill battle in a heavily Democratic city where support is coalescing behind Mamdani.

Cuomo, who has denied wrongdoing, has been dogged by the scandal during his campaign for mayor.

“The settlement is not a vindication, it is capitulation to avoid the truth,” Cuomo’s lawyers said Friday in a statement in which they called Commisso’s allegations “false.”

The attorneys, Rita Glavin and Theresa Trzaskoma, added that they “oppose the dismissal of Ms. Commisso’s lawsuit.”

“Until the truth is revealed, the lawsuit should not be dismissed,” they said in the statement.

Cuomo resigned as governor after a report from the state attorney general determined that he had sexually harassed at least 11 women, with some alleging unwanted kissing and touching, as well as remarks about their appearances and sex lives.

Commisso filed her lawsuit in late 2023, just before the expiration of the Adult Survivors Act, a special law that created a yearlong suspension of the usual time limit to sue over an alleged sexual assault.

She later filed a criminal complaint accusing Cuomo of groping her but a local district attorney declined to prosecute, citing lack of sufficient evidence.

The Associated Press doesn’t identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they decide to tell their stories publicly, as Commisso has done.

Anthony Hogrebe, a spokesperson for current Gov. Kathy Hochul, said Friday that the state “is pleased to have settled this matter in a way that allows us to minimize further costs to taxpayers.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency said Friday it is eliminating its research and development arm and reducing agency staff by thousands of employees.

The agency’s Office of Research and Development has long provided the scientific underpinnings for EPA’s mission to protect the environment and human health. The EPA said in May it would shift its scientific expertise and research efforts to program offices that focus on major issues like air and water.

The agency said Friday it is creating a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions that will allow it to focus on research and science “more than ever before.”

Once fully implemented, the changes will save the EPA nearly $750 million, officials said.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement that the changes announced Friday would ensure the agency “is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment, while Powering the Great American Comeback.”

The EPA also said it is beginning the process to eliminate thousands of jobs, following a Supreme Court ruling last week that cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s plans to downsize the federal workforce, despite warnings that critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be out of their jobs.

Total staffing at EPA will go down to 12,448, a reduction of more than 3,700 employees, or nearly 23%, from staffing levels in January when Trump took office, the agency said.

“This reduction in force will ensure we can better fulfill that mission while being responsible stewards of your hard-earned tax dollars,” Zeldin said, using a government term for mass firings.‘

‘Heart and brain of EPA’

Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House Science Committee, called the elimination of the research office “a travesty.”

“The Trump administration is firing hardworking scientists while employing political appointees whose job it is to lie incessantly to Congress and to the American people,” she said. “The obliteration of ORD will have generational impacts on Americans’ health and safety.”

The Office of Research and Development “is the heart and brain of the EPA,” said Justin Chen, president of American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, which represents thousands of EPA employees.

“Without it, we don’t have the means to assess impacts upon human health and the environment,” Chen said. “Its destruction will devastate public health in our country.”

The research office — EPA’s main science arm — currently has 1,540 positions, excluding special government employees and public health officers, according to agency documents reviewed by Democratic staff on the House science panel earlier this year. As many as 1,155 chemists, biologists, toxicologists and other scientists could be laid off, the documents indicated.

The research office has 10 facilities across the country, stretching from Florida and North Carolina to Oregon. An EPA spokeswoman said Friday that all laboratory functions currently conducted by the research office will continue.

In addition to the reduction in force, or RIF, the agency also is offering the third round of deferred resignations for eligible employees, including research office staff, spokeswoman Molly Vaseliou said. The application period is open until July 25.

‘Declaration of dissent’

The EPA’s announcement comes two weeks after the agency put on administrative leave 139 employees who signed a “declaration of dissent” with agency policies under the Trump administration. The agency accused the employees of “unlawfully undermining” Trump’s agenda.

In a letter made public June 30, the employees wrote that the EPA is no longer living up to its mission to protect human health and the environment. The letter represented rare public criticism from agency employees who knew they could face retaliation for speaking out.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says bases in Indiana and New Jersey can house detained immigrants without affecting military readiness — a step toward potentially detaining thousands of people on bases on U.S. soil.

Hegseth notified members of Congress from both states this week of the proposal to temporarily house detained immigrants at Camp Atterbury in Indiana, and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey.

President Donald Trump has moved to aggressively detain and deport people in the country illegally, a push that has swept up large numbers of immigrants, including many with no prior criminal records, and forced federal authorities to find places to house them.

Hegseth said the presence of the detainees would not negatively affect the bases’ operations or training. Officials have not said when detainees could begin arriving at the facilities or if other military bases are under consideration.

Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Trump’s border czar Tom Homan said there are about 60,000 beds currently available for detained immigrants and the goal is to expand to 100,000.

“We’re looking for any available bed space we can get that meets the detention standards we’re accustomed to,” Homan said Friday. “The faster we get the beds, the more people we can take off the street.”

Democratic lawmakers from both states and civil rights advocates condemned the idea of housing immigrants at the bases, questioning the impact on military resources and the justification for so many detentions.

“Using our country’s military to detain and hold undocumented immigrants jeopardizes military preparedness and paves the way for (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids in every New Jersey community,” New Jersey’s Democratic delegation said in a statement.

Democratic Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana said his questions about detainee conditions have gone unanswered by the Trump administration.

He cited concerns raised about conditions at other facilities and said, “The fact that ICE has detained so many individuals that they now need to expand detention space in Indiana is disturbing.”

Amol Sinha, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, said in a statement that housing immigrants in military facilities sets a dangerous precedent “and is contrary to the values embedded in our Constitution.”

Both of the bases identified by Hegseth have housed Afghan or Ukrainian refugees in recent years.

During Trump’s first administration, he authorized the use of military bases to detain immigrant children — including Army installations at Fort Bliss and Goodfellow Air Force Base in Texas.

In 2014, President Barack Obama temporarily relied on military bases to detain immigrant children while ramping up privately operated family detention centers to hold many of the tens of thousands of Central American families who crossed the border.

Associated Press writers Christine Fernando and Darlene Superville in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump filed a $10 million lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch Friday, a day after the newspaper published a story reporting on his ties to wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The move came shortly after the Justice Department asked a federal court on Friday to unseal grand jury transcripts in Epstein’s sex trafficking case, as the administration tries to contain a firestorm that erupted after it previously announced it would not be releasing additional government files from the case.

Trump had promised the lawsuit after thet Journal put the spotlight on his relationship with Epstein, publishing an article that described a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Trump’s name and was included in a 2003 album compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday. Trump denies writing the letter, calling the story “false, malicious, and defamatory.”

In a post on his Truth Social site, Trump cast the lawsuit as part of his efforts to punish news outlets, including ABC and CBS, which both reached multimillion-dollar settlement deals with the president after he took them to court.

“This lawsuit is filed not only on behalf of your favorite President, ME, but also in order to continue standing up for ALL Americans who will no longer tolerate the abusive wrongdoings of the Fake News Media,” he wrote.

A representative of Dow Jones, the Journal’s publisher, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

The letter revealed by The Wall Street Journal was reportedly collected by disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell as part of a birthday album for Epstein years before the wealthy financier was first arrested in 2006 and subsequently had a falling-out with Trump.

The letter bearing Trump’s name includes text framed by the outline of what appears to be a hand-drawn naked woman and ends with, “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret,” according to the newspaper.

Trump denied writing the letter and promised to sue. He said he spoke to both to the paper’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, and its top editor, Emma Tucker, before the story was published and told them the letter was “fake.”

“These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don’t draw pictures,” the president wrote on social media.

The outlet described the contents of the letter but did not publish a photo showing it entirely or provide details on how it came to learn about it. The suit was filed in federal court in Miami.

Earlier Friday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche filed motions in a separate federal court urging them to unseal the Epstein transcripts as well as those in the case against Maxwell, who was convicted of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein. Epstein killed himself in 2019 shortly after his arrest while awaiting trial.

The Justice Department’s announcement that it would not be making public any more Epstein files enraged parts of Trump’s base in part because members of his own administration had hyped the expected release and stoked conspiracies around the well-connected financier.

The Justice Department said in the court filings that it will work with with prosecutors in New York to make appropriate redactions of victim-related information and other personally identifying information before transcripts are released.

“Transparency in this process will not be at the expense of our obligation under the law to protect victims,” Blanche wrote.

But despite the new push to release the grand jury transcripts, the administration has not announced plans to reverse course and release other evidence in its possession. Attorney General Pam Bondi had hyped the release of more materials after the first Epstein files disclosure in February sparked outrage because it contained no new revelations.

A judge would have to approve the release of the grand jury transcripts, and it’s likely to be a lengthy process to decide what can become public and to make redactions to protect sensitive witness and victim information.

The records would show testimony of witnesses and other evidence that was presented by prosecutions during the secret grand jury proceedings, when a panel decides whether there is enough evidence to bring an indictment, or a formal criminal charge.

Neumeister and Colvin reported from New York.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has opened up a new front in his attack on the Federal Reserve and its chair, Jerome Powell: He says the alledged mismanagement of a building renovation project could be grounds for firing Powell.

Such an unprecedented step could send the financial markets into a tailspin and over time push up interest rates and weaken the U.S. economy. If investors start to worry the Fed is no longer independent, fewer may buy U.S. bonds, which would push up the interest rate on those bonds and lift borrowing costs more broadly.

Trump has criticized Powell for months because the chair has kept the short-term interest rate the Fed controls at 4.3% this year, after cutting it three times last year. Powell says the Fed wants to see how the economy responds to Trump’s sweeping tariffs on imports, which Powell says could push up inflation.

Powell’s caution has infuriated Trump, who has demanded the Fed cut borrowing costs to spur the economy and reduce the interest rates the federal government pays on its debt.

Firing the Fed chair would threaten the Fed’s venerated independence, which has long been supported by most economists and Wall Street investors. Here are some questions and answers about the Fed.

What’s going on with its building project?

The Fed has been renovating its Washington, D.C. headquarters and a neighboring building. With some of the construction occurring underground and as building materials have soared in price after inflation spiked in 2021 and 2022, the estimated cost has ballooned to about $2.5 billion, from $1.9 trillion.

When asked if the costly rebuilding could be grounds to fire Powell, Trump said recently, “I think it is.”

“When you spend $2.5 billion on, really, a renovation, I think it’s really disgraceful,” Trump said.

Yet in 2020, The Associated Press has reported, several Trump appointees to a local review commission pushed the Fed to include more marble in the renovation. Yet now White House officials and other critics of the project are pointing to the marble as a sign of extravagance.

Why does the Fed’s independence matter?

The Fed wields extensive power over the U.S. economy. By cutting the short-term interest rate it controls — which it typically does when the economy falters — the Fed can make borrowing cheaper and encourage more spending, accelerating growth and hiring. When it raises the rate — which it does to cool the economy and combat inflation — it can weaken the economy and cause job losses.

Economists have long preferred independent central banks because they can more easily take unpopular steps to fight inflation, such as raise interest rates, which makes borrowing to buy a home, car, or appliance more expensive.

The importance of an independent Fed was cemented for most economists after the extended inflation spike of the 1970s and early 1980s. Former Fed Chair Arthur Burns has been widely blamed for allowing the painful inflation of that era to accelerate by succumbing to pressure from President Richard Nixon to keep rates low heading into the 1972 election. Nixon feared higher rates would cost him the election, which he won in a landslide.

Paul Volcker was eventually appointed chair of the Fed in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, and he pushed the Fed’s short-term rate to the stunningly high level of nearly 20%. (It is currently 4.3%). The eye-popping rates triggered a sharp recession, pushed unemployment to nearly 11%, and spurred widespread protests.

Yet Volcker didn’t flinch. By the mid-1980s, inflation had fallen back into the low single digits. Volcker’s willingness to inflict pain on the economy to throttle inflation is seen by most economists as a key example of the value of an independent Fed.

What do Wall Street investors think?

An effort to fire Powell would almost certainly cause stock prices to fall and bond yields to spike higher, pushing up interest rates on government debt and raising borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and credit card debt. The interest rate on the 10-year Treasury is a benchmark for mortgage rates.

Most investors prefer an independent Fed, partly because it typically manages inflation better without being influenced by politics but also because its decisions are more predictable. Fed officials often publicly discuss how they would alter interest rate policies if economic conditions changed.

If the Fed was more swayed by politics, it would be harder for financial markets to anticipate — or understand — its decisions.

So does that mean the Fed is completely unaccountable?

Well, no. Fed chairs like Powell are appointed by the president to serve four-year terms, and have to be confirmed by the Senate. The president also appoints the six other members of the Fed’s governing board, who can serve staggered terms of up to 14 years.

Those appointments can allow a president over time to significantly alter the Fed’s policies. Former president Joe Biden appointed five of the current seven members: Powell, Lisa Cook, Philip Jefferson, Adriana Kugler, and Michael Barr. As a result, Trump will have fewer opportunities to make appointments. He will be able to replace Kugler, whose term ends Jan. 31, 2026.

Congress, meanwhile, can set the Fed’s goals through legislation. In 1977, for example, Congress gave the Fed a “dual mandate” to keep prices stable and seek maximum employment. The Fed defines stable prices as inflation at 2%.

The 1977 law also requires the Fed chair to testify before the House and Senate twice every year about the economy and interest rate policy.

But can the president fire Powell?

The Supreme Court earlier this year suggested in a ruling on other independent agencies that a president can’t fire the chair of the Fed just because he doesn’t like the chair’s policy choices. But he may be able to remove him “for cause,” typically interpreted to mean some kind of wrongdoing or negligence.

It’s a likely reason the Trump administration has zeroed in on the building renovation, in hopes it could provide a “for cause” pretext. Still, Powell would likely fight any attempt to remove him, and the case could wind up at the Supreme Court.

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Venezuela released 10 jailed Americans on Friday in exchange for getting home scores of migrants deported by the United States to El Salvador months ago under the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, officials said.

The complex, three-country arrangement represents a diplomatic achievement for Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, helps President Donald Trump in his goal of bringing home Americans jailed abroad and lands Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele a swap that he proposed months ago.

“Every wrongfully detained American in Venezuela is now free and back in our homeland,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement in which he thanked Bukele, a Trump ally.

Bukele said El Salvador had handed over all the Venezuelan nationals in its custody. Maduro described Friday as “a day of blessings and good news for Venezuela.” He called it “the perfect day for Venezuela.”

Venezuelans leave El Salvador’s mega-prison

Central to the deal are more than 250 Venezuelan migrants freed by El Salvador, which in March agreed to a $6 million payment from the Trump administration to house them in its notorious prison.

That arrangement drew immediate blowback when Trump invoked an 18th century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to quickly remove the men that his administration had accused of belonging to the violent Tren de Aragua street gang, teeing up a legal fight that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The administration did not provide evidence to back up those claims.

The Venezuelans have been held in a mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, which was built to hold alleged gang members in Bukele’s war on the country’s gangs. Human rights groups have documented hundreds of deaths as well as cases of torture inside its walls.

Lawyers have little access to those in the prison, which is heavily guarded, and information has been locked tight, other than heavily produced state propaganda videos showing tattooed men packed behind bars.

Photos and videos released by El Salvador’s government on Friday showed shackled Venezuelans sitting in a fleet of buses and boarding planes surrounded by officers in riot gear. One man looked up and pointed toward the sky as he climbed aboard a plane, while another made an obscene gesture toward police.

After arriving in Venezuela, some of the migrants crossed themselves, cried and hugged one another. They wore face masks and street clothes.

Maduro alleged that some of them were subjected to various forms of abuse at the Salvadoran prison, and one of them even lost a kidney “due to the beatings he received.”

Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello told reporters the men would undergo medical tests and background checks before they can go home.

In April, in a heated exchange of diplomatic letters with Venezuela, Bukele proposed exchanging the Venezuelans for the same number of what he called “political prisoners” held by Maduro. It provoked a harsh response from Venezuelan authorities, who called his comments “cynical” and referred to Bukele as a “neofascist.”

Families say the Americans released are innocent

The State Department office responsible for negotiating the release of American detainees posted a photo Friday evening of the newly released prisoners smiling for the camera inside an airplane bringing them home, some clutching an unfurled American flag.

Among those released was 37-year-old Lucas Hunter, whose family says he was kidnapped in January by Venezuelan border guards from inside Colombia, where he was vacationing.

“We cannot wait to see him in person and help him recover from the ordeal,” his younger sister Sophie Hunter said.

Venezuelan authorities detained nearly a dozen U.S. citizens in the second half of 2024 and linked them to alleged plots to destabilize the country.

“We have prayed for this day for almost a year. My brother is an innocent man who was used as a political pawn by the Maduro regime,” said a statement from Christian Casteneda, whose brother Wilbert, a Navy SEAL, was arrested in his Caracas hotel room last year.

Global Reach, a nonprofit organization that had advocated for his release and that of several other Americans, said Venezuelan officials initially and falsely accused him of being involved in a coup but backed off that claim.

The three-country swap gives Maduro a boost

The release of the Venezuelans, meanwhile, is an invaluable win for Maduro as he presses his efforts to assert himself as president despite credible evidence that he lost reelection last year.

Long accused of human rights abuses, Maduro for months has used the migrants’ detention in El Salvador to flip the script on the U.S. government, forcing even some of his strongest political opponents to agree with his condemnation of the migrants’ treatment.

Their return will allow Maduro to reaffirm support within his shrinking base, while demonstrating that even if the Trump administration and other nations see him as an illegitimate president, he is still firmly in power.

Just a week ago, the U.S. State Department reiterated its policy of shunning Maduro government officials and recognizing only the National Assembly elected in 2015 as the legitimate government of the country. Signed by Rubio, the cable said U.S. officials are free to meet and have discussions with National Assembly members “but cannot engage with Maduro regime representatives unless cleared by the Department of State.”

Maduro’s crackdown on dissent spurs detentions

The Americans were among dozens of people, including activists, opposition members and union leaders, that Venezuela’s government took into custody in its brutal campaign to crack down on dissent in the 11 months since Maduro claimed to win reelection.

Besides the U.S., several other Western nations also do not recognize Maduro’s claim to victory. They instead point to tally sheets collected by the opposition coalition showing that its candidate, Edmundo González, won the July 2024 election by a more than a two-to-one margin.

The dispute over results prompted immediate protests, and the government responded by detaining more than 2,000 people, mostly poor young men. González fled into exile in Spain to avoid arrest.

More than 7.7 million Venezuelans have migrated since 2013, when its oil-dependent economy came undone and Maduro became president. Most settled in Latin America and the Caribbean, but after the COVID-19 pandemic, many saw the U.S. as their best chance to improve their living conditions.

The US and Venezuela have agreed on other releases

Despite the U.S. not recognizing Maduro, the two governments have carried out other recent exchanges.

In May, Venezuela freed a U.S. Air Force veteran after about six months in detention. Scott St. Clair’s family has said the language specialist, who served four tours in Afghanistan, had traveled to South America to seek treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Three months earlier, six other Americans whom the U.S. government considered wrongfully detained in Venezuela were released after Richard Grenell, Trump’s envoy for special missions, met with Maduro at the presidential palace.

Grenell, during the meeting in Caracas, urged Maduro to take back deported migrants who have committed crimes in the U.S. Hundreds of Venezuelans have since been deported to their home country, including 251 people, including seven children, who arrived Friday.

Maduro’s government had accused the Trump administration of “kidnapping” the children by placing them in foster care after their parents were deported.

Tucker reported from Washington and Janetsky from Mexico City. Associated Press writers Matthew Lee and Seung Min Kim in Washington and photographer Salvador Melendez in San Salvador, El Salvador, contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Under intense pressure from President Donald Trump’s own supporters, his administration now says it will push a court to unseal secret documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s case in an effort to put to rest for good a political crisis largely of its own making.

But even if those records become public, it’s far from certain they will appease critics enraged over the administration’s unfulfilled promises of full transparency about evidence against the wealthy financier. Meanwhile, the administration remains dogged by questions about its refusal to release other records in its possession after stoking conspiracy theories and pledging to uncover government secrets of the “deep state.”

Here’s a look at the ongoing Epstein files controversy and what may happen next:

How the case got here

Trump is desperately trying to turn the page on a crisis that has consumed his administration since the Justice Department announced last week that it would not release any more evidence about the sex trafficking investigation into Epstein, who killed himself behind bars while awaiting trial in 2019.

The latest development came Thursday when the Wall Street Journal described a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Trump’s name and was included in a 2003 album for Epstein’s 50th birthday. Trump denied writing the letter, calling it “false, malicious, and defamatory.”

Shortly after the story was published, Trump said he had directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to “produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval.”

“This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!” the president wrote on social media.

Bondi then announced that the Justice Department would move Friday to ask the court to unseal the grand jury transcripts.

Courts are typically reluctant to release grand jury materials

Grand juries decide whether there is enough evidence to bring an indictment, or a formal criminal charge, and their proceedings are secret to protect the reputations of people who end up not being charged and to encourage reluctant witnesses to testify.

Grand jury transcripts — which could show the testimony of witnesses and other evidence presented by prosecutors — are rarely released by courts, unless they need to be disclosed in connection with a judicial proceeding. In fact, grand jury secrecy is such a sacrosanct principle under the law that government officials who improperly disclose testimony are subject to prosecution. Witnesses are not bound by those rules.

Even with the Justice Department endorsement, it could take weeks or months of legal wrangling to decide what can be released and how to protect witnesses and other sensitive victim information.

And it’s unlikely the transcripts would shed any light on a major fascination of conspiracy theorists obsessed with Epstein’s case: the financier’s connections to other powerful figures whom some believe were involved in Epstein’s sex trafficking scheme.

Court have blocked the release of grand jury materials in other high-profile investigations. House Democrats in 2019 sought grand jury testimony from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation while Congress was conducting its impeachment inquiry into Trump. But the Justice Department successfully fought for years to keep the material secret.

The administration could release other records right now

The Justice Department’s decision to seek grand jury transcripts gives the administration a reason to point to the courts to explain why more material hasn’t yet been released. But the uproar over the Epstein files was never about the grand jury transcripts — it was about the thousands of other pages in the government’s possession that the administration now says it won’t release.

Facing outrage after the first release of Epstein files flopped in February, Bondi said officials were poring over a “truckload” of previously withheld evidence she said had been handed over by the FBI. But after a monthslong review of evidence in the government’s possession, the Justice Department determined that no “further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”

The Justice Department has yet to fully explain why none of that material could be released. It noted in its memo earlier this month that much of the material was placed under seal by a court to protect victims and “only a fraction” of it “would have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial.”

Since then, Bondi has largely refused to answer questions from reporters about the matter.

Congress’ Epstein files resolution carries no legal weight

House Republicans may vote next week on a resolution that seeks to appease GOP demands for more transparency on the Epstein case, The resolution calls on the Justice Department to publicly release records, but it carries no legal force.

“The House Republicans are for transparency, and they’re looking for a way to say that they agree with the White House,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said Thursday. “We agree with the president. Everything he said about that, all the credible evidence should come out.”

Democrats, with the support of nine Republicans, have advanced their own legislation that would require the Justice Department to release more information about the case.

Associated Press Writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

BOSTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people who are in the U.S. illegally will remain blocked as an order from one judge went into effect Friday and another seemed inclined to follow suit.

U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week his order went into effect.

“The judge’s order protects every single child whose citizenship was called into question by this illegal executive order,” Cody Wofsy, the ACLU attorney representing children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said. “The government has not appealed and has not sought emergency relief so this injunction is now in effect everywhere in the country.”

The Trump administration could still appeal or even ask that LaPlante’s order be narrowed but the effort to end birthright citizenship for children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily can’t take effect for now.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

Meanwhile, a judge in Boston heard arguments from more than a dozen states who say Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for essential services. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin was asked to consider either keeping in place the nationwide injunction he granted earlier or consider a request from the government either to narrow the scope of that order or stay it altogether. Sorokin, located in Boston, did not immediately rule but seemed to be receptive to arguments from states to keep the injunction in place.

Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be “tailored to the States’ purported financial injuries.”

Much of the hearing was focused on what a narrower ruling would look like. The plaintiffs raised concerns that some alternatives floated by the Trump administration — such as giving children in states impacted by the birthright citizenship order social security numbers, but not citizenship — would be costly and unworkable.

They said such a system would burden these states with having to set up new administrative systems, sow confusion among the parents whose children are impacted and possibly turn these states into magnets for families from other states looking to access the benefits.

Government lawyers didn’t seem tied to any one alternative, but told Sorokin the scope of his injunction should be limited. When pressed on how they would do that, a lawyer for the government, Eric Hamilton, would only commit to complying with whatever order was issued.

“If the court modifies the preliminary injunction or stays the preliminary injunction, it should be at most tailored to injuries plaintiffs are alleging which are primary financial,” Hamilton said.

Sorokin pushed back, at one point using an analogy of someone who sued a neighbor over loud music. The defendant offers to build a wall to limit the noise but Sorokin wondered how they could ensure it met the zoning code and was something the defendant could afford.

“What you are telling me is we will do it but, in response to my question, you have no answer how you will do it,” Sorokin said.

LaPlante issued the ruling last week p rohibiting Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit, and a Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off.

The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn’t rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is granting two years of regulatory relief to coal-fired power plants, chemical manufacturers and other polluting industries as he seeks to reverse Biden-era regulations he considers overly burdensome.

Trump issued a series of proclamations late Thursday exempting a range of industries that he calls vital to national security.

The proclamations cover coal-fired power plants, taconite iron ore processing facilities used to make steel, and chemical manufacturers that help produce semiconductors and medical device sterilizers.

The proclamations allow the facilities to comply with Environmental Protection Agency standards that were in place before rules imposed in recent years by President Joe Biden’s administration, the White House said.

Trump called the Biden-era rules expensive and, in some cases, unattainable. His actions will ensure that “critical industries can continue to operate uninterrupted to support national security without incurring substantial costs,” the White House said in a fact sheet.

Trump’s EPA had earlier exempted dozens of coal-fired plants from air-pollution rules for the same reasons. The EPA also offered other industrial polluters a chance for exemptions from requirements to reduce emissions of toxic chemicals such as mercury, arsenic and benzene. An electronic mailbox set up by the EPA allowed regulated companies to request a presidential exemption under the Clean Air Act to a host of Biden-era rules.

Environmental groups have denounced the offer to grant exemptions, calling the new email address a “polluters’ portal” that could allow hundreds of companies to evade laws meant to protect the environment and public health. Mercury exposure can cause brain damage, especially in children. Fetuses are vulnerable to birth defects via exposure in a mother’s womb.

Within weeks of the EPA’s offer, industry groups representing hundreds of chemical and petrochemical manufacturers began seeking the blanket exemptions from federal pollution requirements.

The Clean Air Act enables the president to temporarily exempt industrial sites from new rules if the technology required to meet them is not widely available and if the continued activity is in the interest of national security.

John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said Trump’s claims about technology problems and national security concerns were “pretexts” so he could help big corporations get richer.

“President Trump just signed a literal free pass for polluters,″ Walke said. “If your family lives downwind of these plants, this is going to mean more toxic chemicals in the air you breathe.”

In April, the EPA granted nearly 70 coal-fired power plants a two-year exemption from federal requirements to reduce emissions of toxic chemicals. A list posted on the agency’s website lists 47 power providers — which operate at least 66 coal-fired plants — that are receiving exemptions from the Biden-era rules.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans in March to roll back dozens of key environmental rules on everything from clean air to clean water and climate change. Zeldin called the planned rollbacks the “most consequential day of deregulation in American history.”

An Associated Press examination of the proposed rollbacks concluded that rules targeted by the EPA could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect. The AP review included the agency’s own prior assessments as well as a wide range of other research.

In a related development, the EPA said Thursday it will give utility companies an additional year to inspect and report on contamination from toxic coal ash landfills across the country.

“Today’s actions provide much needed regulatory relief for the power sector and help … unleash American energy,” Zeldin said.