博客

US Senate confirms Trump judge pick opposed by ex-Fox News host

By Nate Raymond
March 17, 2026 8:00 PM UTC Updated 3 hours ago

节点运行失败

Anna St. John, who has been nominated to serve as a federal judge in Louisiana, appears before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 4, 2026, in this screengrab from video. U.S. Senate/Handout via REUTERS/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

Companies

United States Senate Follow
US Senate Follow

March 17 (Reuters) – A conservative legal activist won U.S. Senate approval Tuesday to become a federal judge in Louisiana, despite objections by Democrats and a former Fox News host over testimony she gave five years ago opposing a ​ban on mandatory arbitration for workplace sexual assault or harassment claims.

The Republican-led U.S. Senate voted 51-45 ‌to confirm Anna St. John, the president and general counsel of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, to a seat on the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Report Ad

Republican President Donald Trump announced St. John’s nomination in a January social media post that touted ​her “strong record of tirelessly fighting to protect Free Speech, champion Religious Liberty, and keep men out of women’s ​sports.”

The New Orleans-based lawyer has worked since 2015 at legal activist Ted Frank’s Center for ⁠Class Action Fairness, now part of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, helping advance its campaign against class action settlements ​it says benefits lawyers while delivering little to no relief to consumers.

“She knows our Constitution like the back of ​her hand and has the smarts and experience to be a great, fair judge,” Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement on Tuesday.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Her nomination was opposed by Democrats including Senator Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on ​the Senate Judiciary Committee, who during a hearing earlier this month said her “record reflects a partisan ideology and raises ​serious questions about her ability to impartially administer justice.”

He pointed to opposition to her nomination from former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson, ‌who a decade ⁠ago filed a high-profile lawsuit accusing Roger Ailes, Fox News’ former chief executive, of sexual harassment. Ailes, who died in 2017, denied the claims.

Carlson in an opinion piece she co-wrote that was published online, opens new tab January 29 by the progressive group Alliance for Justice Action claimed that St. John while testifying before Congress had sought to “gaslight” women seeking to eradicate forced ​arbitration following the onset of ​the #MeToo movement.

节点运行失败
NEXT Stay Next About Connatix V243956375 About Connatix V243956375 1/1 Skip Ad Continue watching after the ad节点运行失败
Visit Advertiser website[GO TO PAGE]

The bipartisan Ending ⁠Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act was passed by Congress in 2022 and bans companies from forcing employees who allege sexual assault or harassment to settle their ​claims with an arbitrator without the option of filing a lawsuit.

St. John testified in ​November 2021 before ⁠the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee against the bill, saying in a written submission that arbitration can be a faster, less expensive way to resolve disputes, “even when serious harms such as sexual harassment and assault are at issue.”

Asked during a ⁠February 4 ​hearing about her testimony, St. John again defended arbitration, saying it “can be ​beneficial and that it can result, and often does result, in much higher recoveries for plaintiffs and sexual assault survivors.”

Read more:

Ex-Fox News anchor, Democrats ​oppose Trump judicial nominee over arbitration support

Trump kicks off 2026 with 4 new judicial nominees

Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston

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

Suggested Topics:
Government
Constitutional Law
Judiciary

White House, after top counterterrorism official quits, says Trump had ‘strong’ evidence Iran would attack US

By Greg Norman-Diamond | Fox News
Published March 17, 2026 5:57pm EDT

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back Tuesday on “false claims” in the resignation letter of the nation’s top counterterrorism official, saying President Donald Trump had “strong and compelling evidence” that Iran was going to attack the United States first.

Joe Kent wrote on X earlier this morning that, “After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today.” Kent said he could not in “good conscience” support the ongoing war with Iran, claiming that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

“There are many false claims in this letter but let me address one specifically: that ‘Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation,” Leavitt responded. “This is the same false claim that Democrats and some in the liberal media have been repeating over and over.”

“As President Trump has clearly and explicitly stated, he had strong and compelling evidence that Iran was going to attack the United States first,” she added.

[TRUMP BIDS GOODBYE TO INTEL OFFICIAL WHO RESIGNED OVER IRAN: ‘GOOD THING THAT HE’S OUT’]

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, left, and Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Kent announced his resignation on Tuesday, March 17, 2026.(Annabelle Gordon/AFP via Getty Images; Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Leavitt said, “This evidence was compiled from many sources and factors,” and, “President Trump would never make the decision to deploy military assets against a foreign adversary in a vacuum.”

The press secretary said Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism – a sentiment that House lawmakers agreed with earlier this month when they passed a resolution containing the same language.

“The Iranian regime is evil. It proudly killed Americans, waged war against our country, and openly threatened us all the way up to the launch of Operation Epic Fury,” Leavitt continued.

[EU PUSHES FOR END OF IRAN WAR IN A MANNER WHERE ‘EVERYBODY SAVES FACE’]

The U.S. Navy’s USS Gerald R. Ford conducts flight operations in support of Operation Epic Fury against Iran, from an unidentified location, in this image released on March 9, 2026.(DVIDS/Reuters)

“Iran was aggressively expanding their short-range ballistic missiles to combine with their naval assets to give themselves immunity – meaning they would have a degree of a capabilities that would give them immunity to hold us and the rest of the world hostage,” she added. “The regime aimed to use those ballistic missiles as a shield to continue achieving their ultimate goal– nuclear weapons.”

Leavitt said the president “ultimately made the determination that a joint attack with Israel would greatly reduce the risk to American lives that would come from a first strike by the terrorist Iranian regime and address this imminent threat to America’s national security interests.”

She also slammed the “absurd allegation that President Trump made this decision based on the influence of others, even foreign countries,” calling Kent’s claim “insulting and laughable.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, left, was killed at the beginning of Operation Epic Fury, which was launched by the Trump administration against Iran.(Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images; Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

[CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP]

“President Trump has been remarkably consistent and has said for DECADES that Iran can NEVER possess a nuclear weapon,” Leavitt said. “As someone who actually witnesses President Trump’s decision-making process on a daily basis, I can attest to the fact that he is always looking to do what’s in the best interest of the United States of America — period.America First.”

Greg Norman is a reporter at Fox News Digital.

GOP triggers marathon Senate fight to expose Dems’ opposition to Trump-backed voter ID bill

By Alex Miller | Fox News
Published March 17, 2026 4:01pm EDT

Senate Republicans on Tuesday successfully launched their floor takeover to put Senate Democrats on record against Trump-backed voter ID legislation.

It’s a move to shift the spotlight from internal GOP divisions over the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act onto Senate Democrats, who are ultimately withholding the needed votes to pass the bill.

“Not a single Democrat will support the SAVE Act. It is a radical bill,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor.

“And if Republicans try to burn time on this legislation here on the floor, we will oppose them for as long as it takes.”

[TRUMP VOTER ID PUSH FACES SENATE TEST AS GOP REBELS THREATEN TO SINK BILL]

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and the GOP are gearing up for a floor battle with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Senate Democrats over Trump-backed voter ID legislation.(Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)

It’s also the culmination of a pressure campaign on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., from President Donald Trump, conservatives in his conference and a fervent online campaign to put the bill on the floor.

Trump said he spoke with Thune Monday morning about the forthcoming process and said “he’s trying.”

“I hope John Thune can get it across the line,” Trump said.

When asked if Trump understood the path forward, Thune said, “Well, I think he wants us to fight for our position, which we will, and then we’ll see what the Democrats want to do.”

Still, opening up what will be a multi-day marathon debate on the bill wasn’t without its hiccups. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, joined all Senate Democrats to block the legislation. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who threatened to do everything he could to block the bill, did not vote.

While the lobbying campaign from Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah; Rick Scott, R-Fla.; and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., was partly successful in getting the bill on the floor, it is still destined to fail.

Lee said during a video call on X Monday that he and Trump were confident they could win the floor fight if Republicans “get this thing teed up, and we do not leave it until it’s passed.”

[SENATE GOP EYES BLAME GAME AS TRUMP-BACKED SAVE ACT HEADS FOR DEFEAT]

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One Sunday, March 15, 2026, en route from West Palm Beach, Fla., to Joint Base Andrews, Md.(Mark Schiefelbein/AP)

Lee and a cohort of Republicans pushed Thune to enact a talking filibuster to effectively wear down Senate Democrats and lower the threshold to pass the SAVE America Act to just a simple majority vote.

But there wasn’t unanimous support among Republicans for the move, making a novel idea into a math problem that could easily backfire on the GOP, given that Republicans don’t have the votes to block several Democratic amendments that would drastically change the bill.

“If your senators don’t support using the talking filibuster to pass the SAVE America Act, you might need to replace them,” Lee said on X.

With the initial hurdle passed, the Senate will now begin the marathon debate and amendment process. Amendment votes will only come at the tail end of the floor battle and will require Republicans to take another procedural test that Democrats could block.

And each amendment, which Republicans will control, has to hit a 60-vote threshold, meaning that none of the provisions that Trump wants to be attached to the bill will survive.

[TRUMP-BACKED VOTER ID BILL FACES GOP RESISTANCE AS TILLIS VOWS TO STOP IT]

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington Oct. 7, 2025(Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., will head off the flurry of amendments with a package of add-ons that include Trump’s desired modifications to the bill.

Those include ending unsolicited mail-in ballots, with exceptions for military service members, disabilities and illness; banning men from women’s sports; and halting transgender surgeries on minors.

Halting mail-in balloting isn’t a home run among Republicans, with many pushing back on a sweeping end to the practice.

Johnson acknowledged that hurdle before the vote and agreed that absentee ballots couldn’t be halted altogether, but lawmakers should find “reasonable restrictions” on the practice.

[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP]

“I’ve argued myself you can’t ban absentee ballots, or I’m not gonna be able to vote,” Johnson told Fox News Digital. “I’m here on Tuesdays in Washington, you know. So, you have to have absentee ballots, but there’s got to be restrictions on it.”

Senate Democrats could inflict maximum pain as the floor battle rages, too, turning to procedural moves to bog down the process that could derail the timing of Sen. Markwayne Mullin’s, R-Okla., confirmation hearing as the GOP sprints to install him as Trump’s next Department of Homeland Security chief.

Alex Miller is a writer for Fox News Digital covering the U.S. Senate.

No English content available

The significance of Trump appointee Joe Kent resigning over the Iran war | CNN Politics

[Politics]5 min read

The significance of Trump appointee Joe Kent resigning over the Iran war

Analysis by

[Aaron Blake]

Updated 3 hr ago

Updated Mar 17, 2026, 4:51 PM ET

PUBLISHED Mar 17, 2026, 4:39 PM ET

Donald Trump The Middle East Congressional news January 6th

[See all topics]

Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads

Link Copied!

Joe Kent testifies before the House Committee on Homeland Security on December 11, 2025.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The conservative movement’s internal debate over the Iran war entered a new phase on Tuesday, with the first resignation of a prominent Trump appointee who criticized the war.

In his resignation letter, National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent said he could not “in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran.” Kent implied that the administration had lied about Iran posing an “imminent” threat, and he claimed Israel had lured the United States into a war that “serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives.”

President Donald Trump responded by calling Kent “very weak on security” and said it was a “good thing that he’s out.”

Ad Feedback

So just how significant is this?

Kent is a highly imperfect messenger with a checkered past dating back to his failed campaigns for the US House. And that, combined with his extensive focus on Israel in his resignation letter, should trigger some alarms about precisely where his views are coming from.

At the same time, this is a retired Army Green Beret whom Trump saw fit to put in a high-profile intelligence job. And as the right wrestles with the United States’ first major new war in more than two decades, Kent may represent a portion of Trump’s coalition that is not totally on board with the war, especially the longer it drags on.

Is Kent a paragon of virtue whose letter is on-par with the great principled resignations of years past — people like Cyrus Vance, who in 1980 resigned as secretary of state in protest of Jimmy Carter’s ill-fated attempted rescue of American hostages in Iran?

No. But his move does signal some potential problems for Trump.

Kent is a complicated messenger

Kent is a former House candidate whose ties to White nationalists included giving an interview to a a Nazi sympathizer, CNN’s KFile previously reported. And while he tried to distance his campaigns from extremists, those associations may have hurt his efforts to win a swing seat in Washington state in both 2022 and 2024.

Kent has also promoted conspiracy theories, including that the intelligence community in which he would later serve was involved in planning or directing the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. He was confirmed to his role in July despite losing the vote of Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Republican candidate Joe Kent, during a congressional election debate against Democratic Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez, in Portland, Oregon, in October 2024.

Jenny Kane/AP/File

Kent’s resignation letter Tuesday also turned more than a few heads for how often it invoked Israel.

Kent said that Israel “pressured” the United States into the Iran war. That’s a claim that isn’t exactly ridiculous next to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s early commentary. (After the US first struck, Rubio said Iran posed an imminent threat because Israel was going to strike it, and Tehran would have retaliated by striking US targets. The administration later backed away from that version of its justification.)

But Kent didn’t stop there. He also cited Israel’s “powerful American lobby” in his letter. He blamed “high-ranking Israeli officials” for “a misinformation campaign” about the threat posed by Iran. He blamed Israel for drawing the United States into the Iraq war. And he also called the Syrian civil war (in which his wife died in 2019) “a war manufactured by Israel.”

In other words, it sounded a lot like the kinds of things you might hear from former Fox News host Tucker Carlson these days.

But that’s also kind of the point. Kent’s perspective may be reflective of a broader sentiment within the Trump coalition. Anti-Israel views — and antisemitism — appear to be on the rise, particularly with the younger generation and the influencer class, which could dampen support on the right for the war.

GOP support for the war has its limits

The conventional wisdom right now is that, despite some outspoken conservatives expressing hesitation about the war, the right is in lockstep with Trump.

But that’s not the full picture. In fact, CNN’s poll early in the war showed 23% of Republicans disapproved of the decision to take military action. And much of the GOP support has been rather soft, in CNN’s and others’ polls (i.e., many Republicans said they supported the war, but not “strongly”). That suggests reservations could grow as costs of the war grow.

Even Trump’s own vice president, JD Vance, has conspicuously declined to fully endorse the war.

People walk at the site of a strike in Tehran, Iran, on March 15.

Majid Asgaripour/Wana News Agency/Reuters

Kent’s resignation letter follows in the footsteps of some prominent right-wing influencers who have been unapologetically opposed to the war (and often joined that with criticism of Israel) — people like not just Carlson but former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, former Fox host Megyn Kelly and others.

It’s a dynamic we haven’t really seen before — arguably not even with the Jeffrey Epstein files (where the criticism was more of Trump’s administration than him personally). And those influencers can give others the permission structure to take similar positions. Elite opinion can filter down to the base.

Kent highlights administration’s struggle to justify the war

Kent’s letter also points to a very real, ongoing problem for the administration: its justification for war. Whatever you think of Kent or his rationale, the administration has struggled mightily to explain why Iran posed an “imminent” threat.

After cycling through a few possible justifications, the administration eventually seemed to settle on the narrative that Trump felt Iran was going to strike the United States — despite there being no known intelligence that backed that up.

The right hasn’t concerned itself too much with those kinds of details. But the lack of a clear justification remains a gaping hole in the administration’s case for war that could seemingly become a problem for American voters, to the extent they start paying attention to it.

The question now is whether Kent’s move might presage others making similar decisions. Could Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who has spent years warning against war with Iran, follow suit? (Kent worked under Gabbard early in Trump’s second administration.)

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard attends a Cabinet meeting on December 2, 2025.

Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images

Gabbard weighed in Tuesday afternoon on X, saying it was Trump’s job to determine whether Iran posed an imminent threat — but she notably didn’t give her view on that question.

“After carefully reviewing all the information before him, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat and he took action based on that conclusion,” Gabbard wrote.

We shouldn’t expect large-scale resignations or desertions of Trump from his base. Kent just isn’t that powerful a figure in the MAGA movement.

But Trump is losing his base a little bit at a time. And Kent is a significant entry in that ongoing saga, no matter what you think of him or his reasons.

Donald Trump The Middle East Congressional news January 6th

[See all topics]

Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads

Link Copied!

Ad Feedback

港大研究发现骨质疏松药或有助降低患认知障碍症风险

发布时间：2026年3月18日 07:48 / 来源：联合早报

香港大学医学院团队研究发现，广泛应用于治疗骨质疏松症的药物“含氮双膦酸盐”，或有助骨质疏松症或脆性骨折的老年患者降低罹患阿尔茨海默症及相关认知障碍症（简称“ADRD”）的风险。

据新华社报道，香港大学星期二（3月17日）公布最新研究成果，相关结果已发表于期刊《阿尔茨海默病与痴呆症》。

港大医学院研究团队早前已证实，骨质疏松症和骨折会增加日后出现认知障碍症的风险，而认知障碍症患者跌倒和骨折的风险也较高，反映两者之间存在相互影响的关系。研究团队指出，若能改善骨质疏松症的治疗，可能有助减轻认知障碍症的病情。

“含氮双膦酸盐”是目前治疗骨质疏松症的常用药物。港大医学院研究团队利用全港电子医疗记录进行大规模研究，分析2005年至2020年间超过12万名60岁以上、患有骨质疏松症或脆性骨折的长者。

结果显示，使用“含氮双膦酸盐”的患者罹患ADRD的风险，较未接受治疗的患者降低16%；若与使用其他骨质疏松症药物的患者相比，风险降低24%。

港大医学院药理及药剂学系副教授张正龙表示，这项研究揭示了“含氮双膦酸盐”为老年人提供双重益处，除强化骨骼和预防骨折之外，也可降低患ADRD的风险。

No English content available

Arizona files landmark criminal charges against prediction market Kalshi

Published Mar 17, 2026, 4:11 PM ET / Source: CNN Politics

By [Marshall Cohen]

Updated 1 hr 42 min ago

Updated Mar 17, 2026, 5:44 PM ET

Kalshi, a U.S.-regulated prediction market platform that allows users to trade on the outcomes of real-world events, has surged in popularity, highlighting growing public interest in event-based financial markets and outcome forecasting.

Cheng Xin/Getty Images

Arizona’s attorney general has filed the first-ever criminal charges in the US against a major prediction market company, accusing Kalshi of running an illegal gambling operation in violation of state law.

The criminal case, filed Tuesday in Maricopa County Superior Court, is a serious escalation in the ongoing battle between states, prediction market sites and the federal government, over how the industry should be regulated.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said the criminal charges were warranted because, in her view, Kalshi offers gambling, not futures contracts, and therefore would need state approval to operate.

“Kalshi may brand itself as a ‘prediction market,’ but what it’s actually doing is running an illegal gambling operation and taking bets on Arizona elections, both of which violate Arizona law,” Mayes, a Democrat, said in a statement. “No company gets to decide for itself which laws to follow.”

Prediction markets have exploded in recent months, and traders now spend about $5 billion each week on websites like Kalshi and Polymarket, according to Dune Analytics, which tracks trading volumes. Interest in the industry has spiked after controversies involving Iran war “death markets” and concerns about insider trading.

Prediction market sites let users wager on everything from elections to sports, business, entertainment, even the daily high temperature in various cities or the number of measles cases per year.

Kalshi, which faces 20 misdemeanor counts for accepting bets on various sporting events and elections in Arizona, denies wrongdoing. (CNN has a partnership with Kalshi and uses its data to cover major events, but editorial employees are prohibited from participating in prediction markets.)

A spokeswoman for Kalshi, Elisabeth Diana, said in a statement to CNN that the case is “paper-thin” and claimed prediction markets can only be regulated by the federal government, echoing the position of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

“States like Arizona want to individually regulate a nationwide financial exchange, and are trying every trick in the book to do it,” Diana said, adding that the markets on Kalshi are “different from what sportsbooks and casinos offer” and “should not be overseen by a patchwork of inconsistent state laws.”

Kalshi operates in the US with regulatory approval from the CFTC. The other major player in the industry, Polymarket, is also approved but its US site isn’t fully operational yet, so most of its markets are offshore and unregulated.

Polymarket is not facing any criminal charges.

The Arizona case specifically mentions Kalshi’s election-related markets, which have increased in popularity since the 2024 presidential contest.

For instance, more than $10 million has been wagered on Kalshi, and more than $12 million on Polymarket, over who will be the Republican nominee in Texas’ US Senate race. That race is heading to a runoff in May, between incumbent Sen. John Cornyn and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The Biden-era CFTC initiated a rulemaking process in 2024 to prohibit election-related prediction markets. However, a federal appeals court later allowed Kalshi to offer election markets and the Trump-appointed CFTC chair, Michael Selig, withdrew the agency’s proposed ban earlier this year.

Former CFTC general counsel Robert Schwartz posted on X Tuesday that the Arizona charges highlighted why regulations about prediction markets shouldn’t be decided by “disorderly state by state litigation.”

Schwartz, who worked at the CFTC from 2011 to 2025, also said the agency’s ability to regulate the industry could be hampered if the Arizona case succeeds.

CFTC chairman Michael Selig, a Trump appointee, blasted the Arizona case in a social media post Tuesday afternoon.

“This is a jurisdictional dispute and entirely inappropriate as a criminal prosecution,” Selig said. “The CFTC is watching this closely and evaluating its options.”

This article has been updated with additional developments.

Judge mocks White House East Wing ‘alteration’ as a ‘brazen interpretation of the laws of vocabulary’

By [Devan Cole], [Betsy Klein]
1 hr 50 min ago
PUBLISHED Mar 17, 2026, 5:44 PM ET

The facade of the East Wing of the White House is demolished by work crews on October 21, 2025.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The Trump administration’s arguments in defense of the massive White House ballroom project on Tuesday found virtually no purchase before a federal judge, who appears ready to rule that the president skirted the law by undertaking construction without congressional approval.

During a testy hearing before senior US District Judge Richard Leon, the George W. Bush appointee repeatedly threw cold water on a litany of arguments pushed by the Justice Department that President Donald Trump had authority under a series of federal laws to pursue the project absent express authorization from lawmakers.

Leon has made clear his doubt that Trump has the authority to move forward with the project under a federal law that gives a president the authority to “to undertake ‘alteration’ and ‘improvement’ of the White House, ‘as the President may determine.’”

He took issue on Tuesday with the idea that a sprawling $400 million ballroom renovation and the demolition of the East Wing marked a simple “alteration.”

Calling the project “an alteration,” Leon said, “takes some brazen interpretation of the laws of vocabulary.”

He also took aim at an argument that the White House falls under the National Park Service’s authority and that the Park Service has approved the project.

“This isn’t any national park,” Leon said. “This is an iconic symbol of this nation.”

The legal wrangling Tuesday at the federal courthouse in downtown Washington, DC, represented the latest dramatic episode in the case, unfolding several weeks after Leon rejected earlier arguments pushed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in a highly technical ruling that allowed them to come back to him with different legal claims.

How he rules now could prove extremely consequential: The group is asking the judge for an order that would block any more construction at the site of where the East Wing once stood pending congressional approval. Leon said he would plan to issue his decision by the end of March, while also noting that an appeal by the losing side was likely. The Trump administration has suggested that above-ground work on the ballroom could begin as soon as April.

“It would have been a heck of a lot easier by any standard to have just gone to Congress to get the authority to do it,” Leon said at one point as he scolded the government for pushing “shifting theories and shifting dynamics” in the case, which was brought last year by the nation’s top historic preservation group.

“They’re looking for an escape hatch, it seems,” the judge said, referring to the government’s argument that the group lacked the legal right – known as “standing” – to challenge Trump’s project at all. Leon appeared to be pointing to a bid by some litigants to get a case tossed out on procedural grounds when their underlying arguments are likely to fall flat.

Leon seemed even more troubled by the Justice Department’s assertion that the project was now being completely managed by the National Park Service, which would subject it to federal rulemaking laws and therefore make its conduct reviewable by federal courts.

In his ruling last month, the judge said he couldn’t grant the Trust’s request to block the project because, at the time, the administration claimed the project was being handled by a little-known office within the White House. That office, he decided, is not subject to that same rulemaking law. But the Park Service’s apparent role in overseeing the project, Leon intimated Tuesday, severely undercut their argument that the Trust could not go to court to block it.

“Who is directing this project?” Leon asked at one point, raising his voice. “You can’t have it both ways.”

Yaakov Roth, a Justice Department lawyer, said the White House Executive Residence was “directing 100%” of the project and that the Park Service’s role was specific to funding.

Trump, a former real estate developer, has been personally involved in ballroom details, from floor plans to marble selection. The ballroom project has an estimated size of approximately 89,000 square feet, according to lead architect Shalom Baranes. By contrast, the primary White House structure, the Executive Mansion, is just 55,000 square feet.

Trump has maintained that the project isn’t subject to any oversight and that he should be able to continue with it without any serious scrutiny. He has promised it will be complete in the summer of 2028, months before he leaves office.

伊朗证实最高国家安全委员会秘书拉里贾尼殉难 | 联合早报

发布/2026年3月18日 06:27

伊朗最高国家安全委员会星期三（3月18日）凌晨证实了最高国家安全委员会秘书拉里贾尼的死讯。以色列方面前一天宣布拉里贾尼已被以军暗杀。

综合彭博社和法新社报道，由伊朗国家媒体刊发的伊朗最高国家安全委员会声明说，拉里贾尼（Ali Larijani）的儿子和保镖与他一同殉难。声明没有透露拉里贾尼死亡的具体情况。

另据伊朗塔斯尼姆通讯社报道，伊朗伊斯兰革命卫队发表声明，证实伊朗巴斯基（Basij）民兵指挥官苏莱曼尼（Gholamreza Soleimani）遭美以袭击身亡。

以色列国防部长卡茨17日说，以军在前一天晚上对德黑兰实施精准打击，打死了拉里贾尼，苏莱曼尼也在另一场空袭中丧命。以军称，伊朗巴斯基民兵是伊朗武装体系的重要组成部分，苏莱曼尼已担任这一民兵组织指挥官六年。