A Massachusetts jury's failure to reach a verdict Friday has left prosecutors with a hard choice: retry Lindsay Clancy in the killing of her three children, or let the case end without a resolution at trial.

Clancy remains under psychiatric care at a state hospital while prosecutors decide, according to NBC News, which reported that the mistrial came after jurors could not agree on a verdict. NBC's Valerie Castro reported that officials are now working through next steps, with no announced timeline for a decision on retrial.

The New York Times, examining the trial's dynamics, pointed to a defense strategy built around empathy — the defense lawyer leaned into Clancy's documented mental health struggles rather than disputing the basic facts of what happened. The Times' analysis suggested that approach, paired with a defendant jurors could see as sympathetic, may have been decisive in producing a jury that could not unite behind a guilty verdict.

Cases like this one sit at the difficult intersection of criminal law and mental illness, where juries are asked to weigh not just what a defendant did but what she understood and intended while doing it. A hung jury does not resolve that question; it simply defers it. Prosecutors in Massachusetts must now decide whether the public interest, the strength of their evidence, and the toll of a second trial justify going back before a jury — or whether this case, like so many that turn on the limits of criminal responsibility, will end without the clean verdict either side wanted.

The American Times will report further once prosecutors announce their decision.

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

— Compiled from reporting by NBC News and The New York Times.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

DALLAS — The Republican National Committee gathers this week for a rare mid-cycle convention, and the location carries its own quiet irony. Dallas is Bush country — the city that helped launch a political dynasty built on compassionate conservatism, free trade, and an internationalist foreign policy. None of that will be on stage.

President Trump and Vice President Vance are set to headline the RNC Midterm Convention, an unusual gathering of party leaders and delegates that the president himself called, according to CBS News, as a way to rally Republicans ahead of November's elections. Midterm conventions of this kind are not standard practice for either party; presidents typically let state parties and the national committee handle off-year organizing without a marquee assembly.

NPR, reporting from Dallas ahead of the event, noted the gap between the party that once ruled from this city and the party convening there now. The policies associated with the Bush presidencies — from entitlement reform proposals to a hawkish, alliance-centered approach abroad — are, in NPR's words, "noticeably absent" from today's Republican platform.

What replaces them is still coming into focus, and that is precisely what makes this convention worth watching. A sitting president rallying his party mid-cycle, in front of delegates, in the hometown of the family that once defined the GOP establishment, is a statement about where the party believes it stands — and where it wants to go before voters render a verdict in November.

Neither the RNC nor the White House has released a detailed agenda for the Dallas sessions. What is said from that stage, and what is left unsaid, will tell us more about the Republican Party of 2026 than any platform document.

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

— Compiled from reporting by CBS News and NPR.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

A federal judge has ordered Trump administration officials to disclose who established a $1.8 billion fund created under the banner of ending the government's alleged "weaponization" against conservatives, according to NBC News.

The order arrives in a lawsuit first filed by a fired Jan. 6 prosecutor and a law professor, who are seeking to block the fund altogether. NBC News's reporting did not specify the plaintiffs' full identities, the legal theory underpinning the disclosure order, or the fund's precise statutory basis — details that will matter as the litigation proceeds and that this desk will press to confirm.

What is clear from the available reporting: the fund carries a $1.8 billion price tag, it was established under the Trump administration, and a judge has now decided the public and the court are entitled to know who set it in motion. That alone marks a check on an administration that has moved aggressively, and often opaquely, to reshape federal law enforcement priorities since returning to office.

The case joins a string of other legal disputes testing the boundaries of executive authority this year, including a separate ruling in which an appeals court panel declined to let the Department of Homeland Security reopen access to a voter-screening tool that incorporated Social Security data, according to the New York Times. Courts, so far, remain the primary venue where the administration's structural moves are being tested — and where, in case after case, judges are demanding the paperwork match the rhetoric.

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

— Compiled from reporting by NBC News and The New York Times.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

The Pentagon's hunt for a leaker has reached deep into its own command structure.

Some of the highest-ranking officials in the U.S. military have been subjected to polygraph tests as part of a sweeping leak investigation, U.S. officials briefed on the matter told CBS News. The New York Times reported the effort has expanded further still, placing roughly 50 members of the Joint Staff under polygraph examination.

The Times reported the aggressive push comes in the wake of news accounts detailing the military's diminished stocks of crucial munitions as the U.S. fought Iran — reporting that evidently rattled officials enough to trigger one of the more expansive internal leak hunts in recent memory. Neither report reviewed here named the specific officials polygraphed or specified what classified information investigators believe was disclosed, details that matter for assessing the scope and justification of the inquiry.

Polygraph tests are not admissible in most courts and are widely regarded by scientists as unreliable, though the military has long used them as an investigative tool and a deterrent. Subjecting dozens of senior officers and Joint Staff members to the tests marks an unusually aggressive posture, even by the standards of past Pentagon leak investigations.

The probe unfolds against the backdrop of the broader Iran conflict, in which 18 U.S. service members have been killed, according to ABC News. Whether the leak investigation produces a named source or fizzles, the willingness to polygraph the military's own top brass signals how seriously the Pentagon regards the disclosure — and how far it's willing to go to find who was responsible.

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

— Compiled from reporting by CBS News, The New York Times and ABC News.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

For the second time, a federal judge has told the U.S. Postal Service no.

On Friday, the judge again blocked the Trump administration's sweeping new mail ballot rules ahead of the November election, according to the Los Angeles Times. The administration is now seeking relief from the Supreme Court, the paper reported — a sign officials intend to keep pushing even after two courtroom losses.

The ruling lands amid a broader, multi-front struggle over how ballots get screened and counted this cycle. The Postal Service's own internal watchdog has opened an inquiry after a whistleblower complaint, according to the New York Times, which reported that the administration's effort to screen mail-in ballots for the midterms is facing numerous legal and internal challenges. The specific allegations in that complaint were not detailed in the reporting reviewed here, and that gap should be filled before drawing further conclusions about what the whistleblower alleged.

Meanwhile, North Carolina has added new restrictions to its vote-by-mail program — changes the Times reports are almost certain to cause some ballots to be tossed out. The paper noted the changes arrive as President Trump continues to promote claims of widespread fraud in mail voting, claims that have not been substantiated by evidence in prior election reviews cited in past reporting.

Taken together, the developments show a mail-voting system under simultaneous pressure from federal rule-making, state legislation and internal agency dissent, with courts so far serving as the chief check on the administration's ballot-screening push. What the Supreme Court does with the Postal Service's appeal, and what the internal watchdog finds, will shape how millions of Americans cast ballots by mail this November.

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

— Compiled from reporting by the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

President Trump moved fast to fill the vacancy at the top of the Army, naming Adam Telle acting secretary just days after Daniel Driscoll resigned amid reports of clashes with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to CBS News and The New York Times.

Telle currently leads the Army Corps of Engineers. His elevation, both outlets reported, came within days of Driscoll's departure — a resignation multiple reports tied to friction with Hegseth over the ongoing purge of top Army generals.

Neither the White House nor the Pentagon has offered a detailed public accounting of what precipitated Driscoll's exit. The New York Times reported the clash centered specifically on Hegseth's push to remove senior Army leadership, though the full scope of that disagreement — and whether more departures are coming — remains unconfirmed.

What is documented: Telle now runs one of the military's most powerful civilian posts on an acting basis, overseeing an Army still absorbing the fallout from a leadership shake-up that has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers watching the Pentagon's civilian-military balance under this administration.

The episode adds to a pattern of turnover at senior defense posts this year. Neither Trump's team nor Hegseth's office has said whether Telle will be nominated for permanent confirmation, or how long the acting arrangement will last.

[Editor's note: Full details of the Driscoll-Hegseth dispute have not been independently confirmed beyond the reporting cited above; further reporting is warranted before drawing conclusions about the cause.]

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

— Compiled from reporting by CBS News and The New York Times.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Trump's latest executive order aimed at narrowing birthright citizenship, according to CBS News, dealing the administration another setback in its long-running effort to reinterpret the 14th Amendment by executive fiat rather than constitutional amendment.

The order would have prevented certain people from automatically becoming U.S. citizens at birth — a direct challenge to the amendment's plain text, which grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That language has stood, largely unquestioned by the courts, since 1868.

This is not the administration's first attempt. Earlier versions of the policy have already drawn injunctions from federal courts this year, part of a pattern in which the White House issues an order, loses in district court, and appeals — sometimes rewriting the order's scope in the meantime. CBS News's report does not specify which court issued Wednesday's block or on what precise grounds, details that will matter greatly as the case moves toward appeal.

The stakes reach beyond legal process. Birthright citizenship has anchored American identity for a century and a half, applied without regard to a parent's immigration status. Undoing it by order, rather than through Congress or a constitutional amendment, would mark one of the most consequential unilateral moves of the modern presidency — if it survives the courts, which so far it has not.

Expect this fight to keep climbing. A Supreme Court test looks increasingly likely, and until then, families born in legal limbo will wait to learn whether the ground under them holds.

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

— Compiled from reporting by CBS News.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

The churn at the top of the U.S. military shows no sign of slowing. By CBS News's count, at least 20 generals, admirals and civilian defense leaders have been fired or have resigned since Pete Hegseth became defense secretary at the start of the second Trump administration — a pace and scale that has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers and former officials alike.

The latest addition to that list came this week when President Trump announced he would nominate Hung Cao as Navy Secretary. The New York Times noted the timing: the announcement landed amid what it called "a purge of leadership at the Pentagon" and a stalling war effort against Iran. Cao's confirmation would place a new civilian leader atop a Navy already contending with strain in the fleet — a strain visible this week as the USS Abraham Lincoln arrived in Thailand after what NBC News described as a record-setting deployment in the Middle East, with roughly 5,000 sailors and Marines pausing in Pattaya for rest before heading home. The New York Times reported separately that the Lincoln has been replaced in the Middle East amid what it called a "crew morale crisis," with the Pentagon reporter John Ismay noting that logistical strains on supply ships in the region are likely to persist regardless of which carrier is on station.

CBS News has not detailed the reasons behind each of the 20-plus departures individually, and this article does not attempt to characterize them collectively beyond what the network reported: a historically high number of exits in a short span. What the departures mean for military readiness, and whether Cao's nomination signals a change in approach, remains to be seen — and is worth watching as confirmation hearings proceed.

— Compiled from reporting by CBS News, The New York Times and NBC News.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

Massachusetts Democrats had a chance this week to test whether the party's restless left could topple its old guard. It could not — not this time.

Sen. Ed Markey, 80, defeated a younger primary challenger by a wide margin, according to NBC News projections, and used his victory speech to court the voters who nearly cost him: "the power of the Progressive movement," he called it, telling young supporters their voices needed to be heard now. Rep. Richard Neal and Rep. Stephen Lynch, 71, also won renomination. Lynch's race was the most closely watched of the night — a 71-year-old centrist against Patrick Roath, 39, in what The New York Times described as a contest that laid bare the party's generational and ideological divides. Lynch held on.

In the open Sixth Congressional District, Dan Koh, a former Biden White House aide who ran with the former president's endorsement, won a crowded Democratic field, the Times reported.

On the Republican side, Michael Minogue — a former medical device company executive — won the GOP nomination for governor, defeating Brian Shortsleeve, NBC News projects. He will face Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat seeking a second term, in November.

Taken together, the results suggest a Massachusetts Democratic electorate still willing to back familiar names, even after a primary season that has, in other states, proven turbulent for incumbents. NBC News called Lynch's race "the highest-profile test remaining for House incumbents" this cycle. It ended, for now, the way it usually does in Massachusetts: with the establishment intact.

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

— Compiled from reporting by NBC News and The New York Times.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

Daniel P. Driscoll submitted his resignation as Army secretary to President Trump on Monday, the New York Times and CBS News reported, closing out a tenure that both outlets described as expected — but whose timing could hardly be less convenient for a military service managing two active conflicts at once.

The departure comes as the United States conducted its first strike on Iran in more than a month over the weekend, according to CBS News, with Tehran retaliating in the first exchange of attacks between the two countries in weeks. The broader war, per CBS's reporting, has now stretched into its seventh month — a duration that gets little sustained attention amid the daily churn of domestic news, but one that keeps the Army, Navy, and Air Force stretched across an active theater with no clear resolution in sight.

Neither the Times nor CBS detailed the precise reasons Driscoll gave for stepping down, and the White House has not, in what's been reported so far, laid out a timeline for a successor or an interim replacement. That's a gap worth flagging: a wartime resignation at the top of a military branch ordinarily comes with an explanation, and readers deserve one before speculation fills the void.

What is documented: the resignation was submitted Monday; the U.S.-Iran exchange of strikes happened over the weekend after roughly a month of relative quiet; and the Army now faces a leadership transition while committed abroad. The stakes are straightforward — an military branch doesn't change secretaries mid-conflict without consequence, and the public is owed clarity on who steps in and why the change happened now.

— Compiled from reporting by The New York Times and CBS News.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

The scaffolding can keep going up. A majority of Supreme Court justices ruled this week that construction may continue on President Trump's White House ballroom project, handing the administration a legal win in a dispute over a build-out that includes not just a banquet hall but a secure underground facility beneath the historic grounds, according to NBC News.

This account of the ruling rests on NBC News' reporting alone; the Press has not independently reviewed the Court's order or opinion and cannot yet confirm the vote breakdown or full reasoning. We're flagging that plainly because a Supreme Court ruling clearing construction of a secure facility at the White House is the kind of claim that deserves more than one set of eyes before it's treated as settled record — and right now, we only have NBC's.

The ruling clears the immediate legal hurdle standing in the way of the project, though NBC News' report did not detail the full reasoning of the majority or note how the justices divided beyond describing it as a majority decision. That leaves an open question for readers: which justices dissented, and on what grounds. Absent the opinion's text, that remains unconfirmed here.

What is clear, per NBC's account, is the scope. The project pairs a ceremonial addition — a ballroom for state functions and receptions — with something more consequential: an underground facility NBC describes as secure, the kind of infrastructure that typically signals continuity-of-government or hardened-shelter purposes. NBC's own language is "secure underground facility" — we're using that phrasing here and skipping shorthand terms like "bunker" that we can't attribute to a specific outlet or source. Combining the two in one construction package raises a fair question worth putting plainly, as a matter of editorial framing rather than sourced quotation: what, exactly, is being built on the People's House grounds, and why did judicial review move as quickly as it did? We don't have named critics on record making that case, so we're posing it ourselves rather than attributing it to unnamed "critics."

How the White House itself has characterized the ruling isn't detailed in NBC's report as reviewed here, and we don't have a statement to quote. What we can say, as our own read of the outcome: a favorable ruling on a project the administration has pushed to build gives it more room to proceed without further legal obstruction — that's a characterization by the Press, not a quote from any administration statement. Whether that amounts to a broader precedent for expedited review of major changes to the executive mansion complex, with limited public detail about the underground component's purpose or cost, is a fair question to raise — again, our framing, not one drawn from a named critic or organization.

We don't yet have the full opinion, the vote breakdown, or the project's budget — and we don't yet have a second outlet or the Court's own record confirming any of this beyond NBC's account. Those are the footnotes worth chasing next.

— Compiled from reporting by NBC News.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

A Connecticut senator's claim that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers made arrests at school bus stops set off a public rebuttal from the Trump administration's border czar this week, even as both sides agree on one underlying fact: ICE arrests are climbing nationwide.

White House border czar Tom Homan rejected the senator's characterization, according to CBS News, which reported the dispute from Stamford, Connecticut. The network's account did not name the senator directly in the material available to this desk, nor did it detail the specific incidents the lawmaker cited — a gap that should be closed before this paper treats the bus-stop claim as established fact. What CBS News did report without contradiction is that arrests are up across the country, a trend consistent with the administration's stated enforcement priorities this year.

The episode is a small skirmish in a larger fight over how, where, and on whom immigration enforcement is being carried out — a fight playing out in courtrooms, statehouses, and now, apparently, in the retail politics of local news hits from Connecticut driveways. Parents' fear of encountering agents near schools, whether or not this particular claim holds up, reflects an anxiety immigration advocates say has spread well beyond communities directly targeted by raids.

This paper has not independently verified the specific bus-stop allegation and will not repeat it as fact until it can confirm details with ICE, the senator's office, or firsthand witnesses. The rise in nationwide arrest numbers, however, is not contested by either party to this dispute.

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

— Compiled from reporting by CBS News.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

Election administrators in one of Texas's largest counties are planning to open dozens fewer polling locations than in past cycles, a move that has drawn protest from Democrats who warn it could sow confusion ahead of the November midterms, according to ABC News.

A disclosure for readers: this account rests on a single source, ABC News, which has not named the county, the exact number of sites being cut, or officials' stated rationale; the Press could not independently confirm the specifics of the plan. This desk reached out to seek comment from the county election office in question but, without the county identified in the underlying report, could not yet direct that request to a specific office. We will update when that gap is closed.

What is clear from the reporting: the reduction is real enough to have drawn organized political objection, it affects a county large enough to matter statewide, and it has become a live point of conflict months before ballots are cast. What is not clear — the county's name, the precise count of sites cut, and the administrators' own explanation — is exactly the information a reader would need to judge whether this is routine consolidation or something more troubling.

Polling-site consolidation is not inherently improper; counties routinely adjust locations for cost, staffing, or building availability. But the timing — ahead of a competitive midterm year — is exactly the kind of decision that invites scrutiny, and Democrats quoted in the ABC News account argue the cuts could disproportionately burden voters who rely on nearby, familiar locations. That is their characterization; this paper has not yet obtained a response from the election office being described, and readers should weigh the claim accordingly until one is on record.

Texas has been a battleground for election-administration fights before, and this dispute fits a broader pattern: state and local officials making procedural changes that opponents say function as substantive barriers to the ballot box. Without the underlying county order or a response from election officials in hand, this paper cannot yet assess the specific voters most likely to be affected or verify the county's justification. We will follow up as more detail becomes available.

— Compiled from reporting by ABC News.

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

The water came fast and gave no warning worth the name. Around 2:30 p.m. Saturday, a flash flood ripped through Bright Angel Canyon, one of the busiest corridors in Grand Canyon National Park, destroying nearly all the footbridges across Bright Angel Creek and severing hikers' access to the trail that leads down to the Colorado River.

By Sunday, the National Park Service said at least 20 people were missing or unaccounted for, according to NBC News; The Washington Post put the number above 20, and The New York Times reported the figure at 15 as agencies worked through conflicting early counts — a reminder that first numbers out of a disaster zone are rarely the last ones. At least 62 people were evacuated Saturday, the Times reported, some airlifted out of Phantom Ranch and nearby campgrounds after floodwaters cut off normal routes out.

The Park Service said the flooding caused "significant impacts" to infrastructure throughout the canyon, the Los Angeles Times reported, without yet detailing the full scope of the damage. One hiker described being airlifted from a campground after the water forced dozens to evacuate, NBC News reported.

Search teams have not confirmed any fatalities as of Sunday's reporting, but the discrepancy between agencies' missing-person tallies underscores how difficult it is to track transient backcountry populations — permit holders, day hikers, and river-trip passengers — in a canyon with no cell service and few ways out once the bridges are gone.

The Park Service is asking anyone with information about hikers or backpackers in the affected area to come forward. This story will be updated as the Park Service releases confirmed figures.

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

— Compiled from reporting by the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, The Washington Post and The New York Times.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

CBS News reported that a federal judge has ruled the Trump administration cannot deport international students for criticizing Israel — a decision the network tied to a case brought on behalf of Stanford University's student newspaper, which had argued that some international students were too afraid to speak out because of the threat of deportation.

Here is what we don't have, and what a story like this needs before a reader should treat it as settled fact: the judge's name. The court and division that issued the ruling. The case name and docket number. Whether the Department of Justice or the White House has responded. None of that appears in the CBS News account, and this desk has not yet located or reviewed the underlying court order.

This ruling is reported here on the basis of a single CBS News account; The American Times has not yet reviewed the underlying court order and could not independently confirm the presiding judge, the court, or the precise scope of the injunction. We are not naming a judge or a court because we cannot verify either one against a primary record. We are not describing how broadly the injunction applies because that, too, is unconfirmed.

What CBS News describes is a chilling effect the student newspaper said was already underway: students weighing their words, or staying silent, out of fear that political speech on a fraught foreign policy question could cost them their ability to stay in the country. If accurate, that's a serious claim about the practical effect of immigration enforcement on campus speech — which is exactly why it needs more than one outlet's account behind it.

The case, as described, sits at the intersection of two live fights in American law: the government's broad authority over immigration status, and the First Amendment's protection of political speech, including speech unpopular or aimed at a foreign government. Federal courts have wrestled with similar questions before, as the administration has moved to revoke visas and pursue deportation against students involved in campus protests over Israel and Gaza. That broader pattern is documented elsewhere; this specific ruling is not yet.

We have sought comment from the Department of Justice and the White House and will update this report when we hear back, or when we obtain and review the order itself. Until then, treat the particulars — who ruled, where, how broadly — as unconfirmed.

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

— Compiled from reporting by CBS News. Single-source; independent verification pending.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

Immigration and Customs Enforcement made nearly 50,000 arrests in July, the highest monthly total of President Trump's second term, according to NPR. The surge reflects an enforcement push that has moved beyond traditional targets and into venues immigrants and their advocates once treated as low-risk: airports, courthouses, and routine immigration check-ins.

The expansion into courthouses and check-in appointments marks a shift in tactic. For years, arresting people at courthouses or at scheduled ICE check-ins — appointments many immigrants attend voluntarily, often as a condition of an ongoing case — was the exception. NPR's reporting indicates it is becoming more routine, a change that immigration attorneys have long warned could discourage people from showing up to court or complying with the very government appointments meant to track their cases.

[Editor's note: This account rests on a single NPR report. It does not break down the July arrest figures by criminal history, immigration status, or location, nor does it include comment from ICE, the Department of Homeland Security, or affected individuals. Those specifics — and any denial or defense from the administration — should be sought before this story is expanded.]

The numbers arrive amid a broader debate in Washington over the scale and methods of immigration enforcement under the current administration, a debate that has played out in courtrooms, in Congress, and increasingly in videos of arrests at places once considered neutral ground. Whether July's total represents a new baseline or a peak will depend on enforcement decisions still being made inside DHS.

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

— Compiled from reporting by NPR.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

Marine One, the helicopter that carries the President of the United States, lost communication with air traffic controllers at Reagan National Airport for the second time this month, according to ATC audio reviewed by ABC News.

The details of what caused the lapse, and how long it lasted, were not immediately clear from the audio. ABC News did not report an official explanation from the White House or the Federal Aviation Administration for either incident.

Reagan National sits inside one of the most tightly regulated stretches of airspace in the country, a fact underscored by January's midair collision between an Army helicopter and a passenger jet near the airport that killed 67 people. That crash triggered scrutiny of helicopter routes, controller staffing and communication protocols in the corridor — scrutiny that a repeat communications lapse involving the President's own aircraft will only sharpen.

[Editor's note: This item is sourced from a single ABC News report citing ATC audio. The cause of the communications loss, its duration, and any response from the Secret Service, the Army unit that flies Marine One, or the FAA have not been independently confirmed and should be pursued for a fuller account.]

Neither incident, per the available reporting, resulted in a collision or a declared emergency. But two lapses in a single month involving the aircraft carrying the commander-in-chief is the kind of pattern that invites hard questions in the coming days — about equipment, about protocol, and about whether the corridor around Reagan National is any safer than it was in January.

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

— Compiled from reporting by ABC News.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

Milo Yiannopoulos, the British right-wing commentator who built a career championing President Trump's agenda, is now in the custody of the agency enforcing it.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has taken Yiannopoulos into custody, alleging he overstayed his visa, CBS News reported. The agency labeled him an "illegal alien" — the same term Yiannopoulos and allies on the right have used for years to describe undocumented immigrants targeted for removal under the administration's enforcement push.

Details on how long Yiannopoulos had been in the country, when his visa lapsed, or what happens next in immigration proceedings were not included in available reporting, and should be treated as open questions pending further disclosure from ICE or Yiannopoulos's representatives.

The arrest lands amid a broader, aggressive expansion of immigration enforcement under the Trump administration, one that has occasionally ensnared people not typically associated with the political left's fears about deportation — a fact that has generated notice regardless of one's politics. Yiannopoulos rose to prominence a decade ago through incendiary commentary and campus speaking tours before his public profile receded following controversy over past remarks.

CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes covered the detention; no independent confirmation of the specific visa violation alleged was available beyond that reporting.

The case will likely test, in miniature, how the administration's enforcement machinery treats supporters and critics alike once the paperwork says the same thing: overstayed status.

— Compiled from reporting by CBS News.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

Nearly a quarter-century after the September 11 attacks, the government's case against the man accused of plotting them has hit another wall.

A military judge this week ruled that confessions Khalid Sheikh Mohammed made to FBI agents at Guantanamo Bay were not given voluntarily, and cannot be used against him at trial, according to CBS News. Mohammed is accused of developing the plot to fly hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The ruling pushes the long-delayed prosecution further out, with trial now set for June 2028 — nearly 27 years after the attacks. The case has been mired for years in pretrial disputes over the treatment of detainees, including years of CIA custody before Mohammed's transfer to Guantanamo.

The FBI agents who took those statements are the subject of an upcoming CBS documentary, "Daughters of 9/11," set to air September 11 on CBS and Paramount+, timed to the 25th anniversary of the attacks.

The setback underscores a persistent problem for military prosecutors: evidence gathered from detainees held for years without charge, and reportedly subjected to harsh interrogation, keeps running into voluntariness challenges that federal courts and military commissions alike have struggled to resolve. This report relies on CBS News' account of the ruling; the judge's full written opinion was not independently reviewed here.

Families of the victims, many of whom have waited decades for a trial, now face yet another postponement — a reminder that in this case, as in few others, the wheels of justice have moved at a pace measured in decades, not months.

— Compiled from reporting by CBS News.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."

A federal judge on Thursday night barred the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing new restrictions on mail-in voting, issuing a temporary restraining order that keeps the agency out of the election process while litigation continues.

The ruling came after the judge reviewed the Postal Service's final plan to comply with demands from President Trump, who has long pushed to curtail mail voting despite no proven pattern of widespread fraud tied to the practice. This is not the first time a court has stepped in: the same judge had previously blocked an earlier version of the rules, and Thursday's order effectively renews that block for the rules' revised form.

The practical effect, for now, is that the Postal Service cannot impose the new mail-voting requirements in time for the November midterm elections. Litigation over the underlying rules continues, meaning the fight is not over — only paused.

Details of what specifically the rules would have required, and the full legal reasoning behind Thursday's order, were not fully spelled out in available reporting. Election officials in multiple states rely on the Postal Service to deliver and return mail ballots, and any disruption to that system in the weeks before an election can ripple through vote counts and certification timelines.

The administration has not said whether it will appeal. What's clear is that mail voting — a flashpoint since 2020 — remains contested terrain heading into the fall, with courts, not Congress, setting the rules of the road for now.

Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.

— Compiled from reporting by ABC News, The New York Times, NBC News, and CBS News.

The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."