分类： 未分类

No English content available

No English content available

No English content available

No English content available

DOJ seeks pretrial detention of shooting suspect Cole Allen, releases new photos

April 29, 2026 / 11:08 AM EDT / CBS News

By Katrina Kaufman, Jacob Rosen

Jacob Rosen Justice Department Reporter

Jake Rosen is a reporter covering the Department of Justice. He was previously a campaign digital reporter covering President Trump’s 2024 campaign and also served as an associate producer for “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”

Read Full Bio

Jacob Rosen

The government is asking the court to detain White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner shooting suspect Cole Allen pending trial, according to court documents filed Wednesday.

D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro filed a memorandum making the request and included a new photo of Allen with his weapons that officials say he took shortly before the attack Saturday night.

“At approximately 8:03 p.m., while back inside his hotel room, the defendant used his cellphone to take a photograph of himself in the mirror,” the memorandum states, pointing out items including a shoulder holster and a sheathed knife in the photo.

About half an hour later, authorities say, the suspect sprinted past the magnetometers and fired a shotgun blast before falling down and being restrained by officers.

A Justice Department court filing includes images of a selfie Cole Allen allegedly took in his hotel room shortly before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting on April 25, 2026. (Evidence markers added by DOJ.) U.S. Department of Justice

Allen was charged Monday in federal court with three counts including attempting to assassinate the president. The other two charges involved the use and transport of firearms.

The memorandum noted that Allen, if convicted, faces a possible maximum life sentence in prison.

“The defendant’s actions were premeditated, violent, and calculated to cause death,” the memorandum said. “Considering the relevant statutory factors, there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of other people or the community if the defendant were released from custody. The Court should detain the defendant pending trial.”

Melissa Quinn contributed to this report.

Federal appeals court won’t rehear Trump’s appeal of E. Jean Carroll’s $83 million jury award

2026-04-29T15:42:53.134Z / CNN

By Kara Scannell

PUBLISHED Apr 29, 2026, 11:42 AM ET

E. Jean Carroll leaves Manhattan Federal Court in New York, following the conclusion of her civil defamation trial against Donald Trump, on January 26, 2024.

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images/File

A split federal appeals court said its full bench of judges would not rehear President Donald Trump’s appeal of the $83 million jury award for defaming magazine columnist E Jean Carroll.

The decision paves the way for Trump to ask the US Supreme Court to hear his arguments involving presidential immunity following the high court’s landmark 2024 decision.

In a split decision, a majority of judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Trump’s motion to have his appeal heard “en banc” or by the full bench of judges.

The decision is the latest turn in a six -year legal battle between Carroll and Trump that resulted in two civil trials including one where Trump briefly took the witness stand.

“The American People stand with President Trump in demanding an immediate end to the unlawful, radical weaponization of our justice system, and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the illegal, Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes—the defense of which the Attorney General has determined is legally required to be taken over by the Department of Justice because Carroll based her false claims on the President’s official acts,” a spokesman for Trump’s legal team told CNN. “President Trump and his legal team will be appealing this decision as he continues to fight against, and consistently defeat, Liberal Lawfare.”

Related article E. Jean Carroll leaves Manhattan Federal Court in New York, following the conclusion of her civil defamation trial against Donald Trump on January 26, 2024. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images/File Trump asks Supreme Court to overturn verdict that he sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll 2 min read

Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for Carroll, also issued a statement:

“E. Jean Carroll is eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice.”

Trump had asked the full bench to rehear arguments that a panel of judges rejected in September. The panel affirmed the jury’s verdict that Trump defamed Carroll when in 2022, during his first term, he denied her allegations of sexual assault, said she wasn’t his type, and suggested she made up the allegations to sell copies of her new book. The jury awarded Carroll $83 million in damages.

In 2023, a different jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll over an alleged assault that occurred in the mid-1990s at a New York department store and for statements he made in 2019 denying it happened. That jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages.

Trump asked the Supreme Court to hear his challenge to the $5 million judgment, but the court has not yet decided. In that case, Trump has said the trial judge made mistakes by allowing two other women to testify about alleged sexual assaults by Trump and by allowing Trump’s hot mic comments to Access Hollywood to be played in court.

In the current case, Trump argued the Justice Department should have been substituted for him as a defendant because he made the statements within the scope of his duties as president in response to questions by reporters. The Justice Department can’t be sued for defamation so it would have ended the litigation.

In September, the panel of appeals court judges rejected those arguments finding that Trump waived his right to claim immunity and that the Supreme Court 2024 decision on immunity didn’t alter its view.

In Wednesday’s decision, three of the appeals court judges disagreed with the majority and said they would have reheard the case.

“Whatever one thinks about the merits of Trump v. United States, everyone agrees that it represents a significant legal development,” the three judges wrote in a 54-page dissenting opinion. “I would rehear the case en banc to bring our case law about the scope of presidential duties and immunity into conformity with decisions of the Supreme Court and to resolve these questions of exceptional importance in line with the constitutional separation of powers and normal judicial practice.”

Denny Chin, a senior circuit judge, wrote that the majority got it right.

“The dissent goes further than either of the filed petitions, challenging rulings in our decisions, as well as prior decisions of this Court, that neither Trump nor the Government contests in their petitions for rehearing. En banc review of these issues, which were not raised by the petitioning parties, was properly denied,” Chin wrote.

US Supreme Court guts key provision of Voting Rights Act

2026-04-29T14:14:43.181Z / Reuters

By John Kruzel and Andrew Chung

April 29, 2026 2:14 PM UTC Updated 4 mins ago

Item 1 of 2 People protest on the day the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments regarding the composition of Louisiana electoral districts, in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz

[1/2]People protest on the day the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments regarding the composition of Louisiana electoral districts, in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

• Summary
• Companies

• Ruling is a win for Trump and Louisiana Republicans
• Case was latest US fight over racial issues in voting maps
• Louisiana map increased Black-majority US House districts

WASHINGTON, April 29 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act – making it harder for minorities to challenge electoral maps as racially discriminatory under the landmark civil rights law – in a victory for Louisiana Republicans and President Donald Trump’s administration.

The justices, in a 6-3 ruling powered ​by the court’s conservative members, blocked an electoral map that had given the state a second Black-majority congressional district. The court’s three liberals and legal experts denounced the decision as hollowing out Section 2 of the Voting ‌Rights Act, which Congress enacted to bar electoral maps that would result in diluting the clout of minority voters.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The full impact of the ruling on November’s midterms was not immediately clear, though legal experts said it is possible states may try to enact new maps as a result of the decision. Louisiana has a primary election set for May 16.

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The ruling was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by his five fellow conservative justices. The three liberal justices dissented.

The Louisiana case involved a central element of the Voting Rights Act. The law’s Section 2 was passed by ​Congress to prohibit electoral maps that would result in undermining the clout of minority voters, even without direct proof of racist intent.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Alito wrote that the focus of Section 2 must now be to enforce the Constitution’s prohibition on intentional racial ​discrimination under the 15th Amendment.

“Only when understood this way does (Section 2) of the Voting Rights Act properly fit within Congress’s Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power,” Alito wrote.

Interpreting Section 2 to “outlaw a map solely because ⁠it fails to provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create a right that the Amendment does not protect,” Alito added.

REDISTRICTING BATTLES

The ruling was issued amid a battle unfolding in Republican-governed and Democratic-led states around the country involving the redrawing of electoral maps to ​change the composition of congressional districts for partisan advantage ahead of the November congressional elections.

Trump’s party is aiming in the elections to retain the now razor-thin Republican majorities in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.

This provision gained greater significance as a bulwark against racial discrimination ​in voting after the Supreme Court, in a 2013 ruling authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, gutted a different part of the same law.

Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent joined by the two other liberal justices, said that the ruling will have major consequences.

“Under the court’s new view of Section 2, a state can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power. Of course, the majority does not announce today’s holding that way. Its opinion is understated, even antiseptic. The majority claims only to be ‘updating’ our Section 2 law, as though through a few technical tweaks,” Kagan said.

“But in fact, those ‘updates’ eviscerate ​the law, so that it will not remedy even the classic example of vote dilution given above,” she added.

The Trump administration backed the challenge made in the Louisiana case to the Voting Rights Act, advocating for raising the bar for proving a Section 2 violation.

Harvard ​Law School Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos, who filed a brief in the case defending the Voting Rights Act, called the ruling “a complete gutting of Section 2.”

“It’s still there, in theory, but no one will be able to win a claim under the provision,” Stephanopoulos said. “States can freely dismantle minority-opportunity districts ‌as long as ⁠they make clear they’re doing so for partisan or other political reasons.”

NAACP President Derrick Johnson called the decision a “devastating blow” to the Voting Rights Act. Johnson said the civil rights organization plans to respond by turning out voters in the midterm elections, adding that “our best defense and offense is the ballot box.”

ANOTHER VOTING RIGHTS ROLLBACK

Louisiana, where Black people make up roughly a third of the population, has six U.S. House of Representatives districts. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates.

In a process called redistricting, the boundaries of legislative districts across the United States are reconfigured to reflect population changes as measured by the national census conducted every 10 years. Redistricting typically has been carried out by state legislatures once per decade.

After Louisiana’s Republican-controlled legislature adopted a map that included just one Black-majority district following the 2020 census, a group ​of Black Louisiana voters sued. A federal judge then ruled in ​favor of the plaintiffs, deciding that the map likely harmed ⁠Black voters in violation of Section 2.

The state legislature responded by drawing a new map that added a second Black-majority district. This map prompted a separate lawsuit by 12 Louisiana voters who described themselves in court papers as “non-African American.” They argued that the second Black-majority district unlawfully reduced the influence of non-Black voters like them. White people make up a majority of Louisiana’s population.

The redrawn map relied too ​heavily on race in violation of the equal protection principle, a three-judge panel found in a 2-1 ruling, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has rolled back protections under ​the Voting Rights Act. Its 2013 ⁠ruling in a case involving Alabama’s Shelby County gutted a Voting Rights Act provision that had required states and locales with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval to change voting laws.

The court, however, ruled 5-4 in 2023 that a Republican-drawn electoral map in Alabama violated Section 2, siding with Black voters who had challenged the map and had sought an additional Black-majority congressional district. Roberts and fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s three liberals to form a majority in that decision.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Louisiana case in October 2025. ⁠It previously had ​heard arguments in the case in March 2025, but sidestepped a decision and ordered another round of arguments.

Louisiana initially had appealed the three-judge panel’s ruling and argued ​in March on the same side as the Black voters. But the Republican-led state subsequently reversed its stance.

Public views are nuanced on the role of race in drawing election boundaries. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted this month showed 75% of Americans – including 65% of Black Americans – thought race should not be considered when drawing congressional maps. But ​about five in 10 respondents in the poll – and six in 10 Black respondents – said they thought communities that share characteristics including race should be represented in the same congressional district.

Reporting by John Kruzel; Additional reporting by Joseph Ax and Jason Lange; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Bondi to testify in House Oversight’s Epstein probe next month as Democrats threaten contempt

April 29, 2026 / 10:30 AM EDT / CBS News

Former Attorney General Pam Bondi will appear before the House Oversight Committee next month for a closed-door deposition in the ongoing congressional investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.

A spokeswoman for the committee announced Bondi’s deposition moments after Democrats on the committee said they had filed a resolution that would hold Bondi in contempt of Congress for her failure to appear under subpoena earlier this month.

“Clearly we’re being effective,” the committee’s Democratic Ranking Member Robert Garcia said in response to the news.

Bondi was initially set to appear on April 14, but the Justice Department said she would not appear, since she had been ousted from her post in the interim. A senior Justice Department official wrote in a letter to the committee that it was calling off her appearance because the committee’s subpoena was issued to Bondi in her official capacity as attorney general, not in her personal capacity.

The committee approved a motion on March 4 to subpoena Bondi. The panel’s Democrats were joined by five Republicans in voting for the subpoena: Reps. Nancy Mace, Lauren Boebert, Michael Cloud, Scott Perry and Tim Burchett.

Before the announcement Wednesday, Garcia said that Bondi was to blame for the delay.

“Pam Bondi has illegally defied our committee, skipped her deposition, and has refused to cooperate,” Garcia said.

Congress approved the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November, which required the release of the Justice Department’s records related to federal investigations into Epstein and accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. Bondi faced heated criticism from officials in both parties about the agency’s efforts to comply with the law.

The Justice Department ultimately released roughly 3 million pages of documents, roughly half its files. It said millions of other documents were withheld for reasons including efforts to protect survivors’ personal information and avoid jeopardizing active federal investigations.

Bondi will be among a slew of high-profile people to come before the committee. Previous testimony includes depositions from former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and billionaire businessman Les Wexner.

Jaala Brown contributed to this report.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/did-pam-bondis-handling-of-the-epstein-files-lead-to-trump-firing-her/

特朗普会见石油公司高层讨论石油市场议题

2026年4月29日 22:10 / 联合早报

特朗普星期二（28日）会见了能源巨头雪佛龙首席执行官沃思（图）及其他能源公司的高层，讨论了包括美国石油产量、石油期货、海运和天然气在内的一系列议题。 （路透社）

特朗普星期二（28日）会见了能源巨头雪佛龙首席执行官沃思（图）及其他能源公司的高层，讨论了包括美国石油产量、石油期货、海运和天然气在内的一系列议题。 （路透社）

白宫官员星期三说，美国总统特朗普会见了雪佛龙及其他能源公司高层，讨论如果需要对伊朗港口实施长达数个月封锁，可采取哪些措施来稳定石油市场。

路透社报道，白宫一名官员星期三（4月29日）说，特朗普星期二（28日）会见了能源巨头雪佛龙及其他能源公司的高层，讨论包括美国石油产量、石油期货、海运和天然气在内的一系列议题。

雪佛龙发言人说，雪佛龙首席执行官沃思出席了这次的会议，讨论因美伊战争而动荡不安的全球石油市场。

据报道，财长贝森特、白宫幕僚长怀尔斯、总统特使威特科夫以及特朗普女婿库什纳也出席了这场会议。

这名白宫官员称：“这些企业高管一致高度评价特朗普总统为释放美国能源主导地位所采取的行动，并认为总统当前在做的一切都是正确的。”

美国禁向伊朗付海峡通行费 或准备长期实施海上封锁 伊朗官员：美国试图以封锁逼迫伊朗是徒劳的

另据《华尔街日报》星期二引述美国官员报道，特朗普已指示助手准备对伊朗实施长期封锁，以迫使伊朗在核问题上做出让步。

伊朗驻埃及开罗利益代表处负责人菲尔多西普尔同日称，美国试图以海上封锁迫使伊朗接受美方单方面要求是徒劳的，伊朗可以利用与周边国家的陆地边界绕过封锁。

The Odds: Fed rates and inflation

2026-04-29 9:53 AM EDT / CNN

By Ainsley Ehlers, CNN

CNN News Central’s John Berman and Chief Data Analyst Harry Enten dig through what prediction markets are saying about Wednesday’s decision on interest rates from the Federal Reserve.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/29/politics/video/the-odds-fed-rates-and-inflation-cnc-kalpar
3:30 • Source: CNN