&w=3840&q=100)
FBI removes two top officials amid Capitol riot probe controversy
Bloomberg
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is ousting two senior officials who've been ensnared in controversies related to the agency's investigations of the Jan 6, 2021, Capitol riot, marking the most significant leadership shake-up since Kash Patel took over as director.
Brian Driscoll, the bureau's former acting director, and Steven Jensen, who's been leading the Washington Field Office since April, were instructed to leave, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters.
The removals follow months of scrutiny from Republican lawmakers, who have called for a full accounting of the bureau's handling of politically sensitive cases tied to the attack on the Capitol.
Driscoll led the bureau temporarily ahead of Patel's confirmation in February. He was briefly in the spotlight after the administration demanded the FBI compile a list of staff who worked on investigations or prosecutions related to the Capitol riot.
Jensen previously served as section chief of the domestic terrorism operations section, according to an FBI press release in April announcing his ascent to assistant director in charge of the Washington office.
The removals come as the Trump administration steps up its effort to restructure the Justice Department and federal law enforcement. Attorney General Pam Bondi has issued a series of internal directives targeting what she called 'unethical prosecutions' tied to Jan 6.
The FBI Agents Association said in a statement it is 'deeply concerned' by the report that the agents 'are going to be summarily fired without due process for doing their jobs investigating potential federal crimes.'
'Agents are not given the option to pick and choose their cases, and these Agents carried out their assignments with professionalism and integrity,' the nonprofit association said. 'Most importantly, they followed the law.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
May Mailman education and career: How a Kansas-born lawyer rose to influence US higher education policy from the White House
May Mailman educational background and policy career: How this Harvard-trained lawyer became a key architect in Trump's higher education agenda. (Photo courtesy: LinkedIn) May Mailman has emerged as a central, yet relatively unknown figure in the Trump administration's relentless campaign targeting some of America's most prestigious universities. A Harvard-educated lawyer, Mailman has played a pivotal role in crafting policies that have challenged the core principles of higher education, including academic freedom, admissions practices, and diversity initiatives. Her influence has shaped a confrontational approach towards institutions that have long stood as pillars of independent research and academic excellence. In August 2025, as reported by CBS News, May Davis Mailman departed the White House, ending her tenure as deputy assistant to the president and senior policy strategist. Despite leaving, she remains involved as a special government employee to wrap up ongoing negotiations, including sensitive talks with Harvard University over frozen federal research funding. Mailman is also planning to start a government affairs firm, although she has committed not to take clients related to her former administration projects. Early life and education Born Sylvia May Davis in 1988, Mailman was raised in the Midwest in small, predominantly white towns in Kansas. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This is What Your Fingers Say About Your Personality Tips and Tricks Undo Her parents met overseas in South Korea before settling in the United States. Growing up as one of the few individuals of Asian descent in her community, Mailman faced social challenges early on but developed a sharp wit and candid communication style. She attended the University of Kansas, majoring in journalism and actively engaging with the College Republicans. Her political awakening was inspired by a George W. Bush campaign event, which reshaped her perception of Republican leadership. Later, in 2012, Mailman enrolled at Harvard Law School, where she was remembered as outspoken and energetic by classmates. Career beginnings and White House roles After graduating from Harvard in 2015, Mailman initially worked at a midsize law firm in Denver. She was soon recruited to the White House, joining the first Trump administration in various capacities including the staff secretary's office, chief of staff's office, and White House counsel's office. During this time, she gained unique access to senior advisers, frequently travelling with the president and key staff. Her role as a policy strategist in Trump's second term Returning to Washington for Trump's second term, Mailman was tasked with turning campaign promises into actionable policies. She became an architect of controversial executive orders redefining federal policies on gender and diversity, influencing institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University. Her work has been credited with leveraging federal power to reshape university admissions and athletic policies in line with the administration's conservative agenda. Personal background and political views Mailman's political philosophy aligns with a libertarian aversion to political correctness, and she has openly embraced roles opposing transgender protections and affirmative action policies. Despite the contentious nature of her work, colleagues praise her as a pragmatic and efficient negotiator. Mailman is also a mother of three and has balanced her demanding career with family life. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Pennsylvania House makes last-ditch effort to stave off cuts at Philadelphia's public transit agency
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A last-ditch effort to prevent half of all public transit services from being eliminated in the Philadelphia region passed Pennsylvania's House of Representatives on Monday, as a roughly $1 billion Democratic-backed funding plan advanced toward an uncertain future in the Republican-controlled state Senate. HT Image The bill — which includes funding for highways, too — increases aid for transit agency operations by $292 million, or about 25% more, with the lion's share of the money going to the Philadelphia-based Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. SEPTA has said it cannot keep waiting for more aid and must start making cuts in the coming days, which it says will be more drastic than any undertaken by a major transit agency in the United States. The nation's sixth-largest public transit system has warned that it will cut half its services by Jan. 1 and be unable to provide enhanced service for major tourist events next year. Those include FIFA World Cup matches in Philadelphia, events surrounding the celebration of the nation's 250th birthday, Major League Baseball's all-star game, the PGA Championship and NCAA March Madness games. The legislation passed in the House by 108-95 over the objection of nearly every Republican in the chamber. It has the support of Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, but Republican senators have resisted increasing aid for transit. The deadline push comes after two years of stalemate, and as transit agencies nationwide struggle with rising costs and lagging ridership. SEPTA has said that on Thursday it will begin a 10-day preparation period for 20% across-the-board service cuts. Those take effect Aug. 24 and include eliminating bus routes with lower ridership and reducing the frequency of bus, trolley and rail services across the region. Under the plan, fares will then rise by 21.5% on Sept. 1 for the system's approximately 800,000 daily riders. A weekday ride would rise from $2.50 to $2.90 on a bus, train or trolley, it said. Soon after, the agency would impose a hiring freeze and carry out additional service cuts by Jan. 1 that will mean it will have eliminated half its current services, it has said. That will include cutting more regional rail and bus routes and imposing a 9 p.m. curfew on rail services, some of which go as late as 1:30 a.m. currently. Democrats say shoring up public transit agencies around the state is critical to the economy and making sure people can get to work, school and medical appointments. Republicans have objected that transit agencies need to become more efficient, highways need more state funding and transit riders should pay higher fares. Transit agencies in Pittsburgh and elsewhere around Pennsylvania also say they are making cuts or raising fares, or both. Under the bill, an extra 1.75 percentage points of state sales tax revenue — from 4.4% to 6.15% — would go toward a public transit fund to help pay for the operations of several dozen transit systems around the state. The increase represents about $292 million. Democrats inserted several other provisions into the bill in a bid to pick up Republican votes. That includes funding up to $325 million in borrowing authority for highway projects, allocating $275 million for improvements to smaller, rural roads and commissioning the creation of performance standards for the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh transit agencies. ___ Follow Marc Levy on X at
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Landmark trial kicks off over Trumps use of US military in LA policing role
By Dietrich Knauth and Jack Queen -A landmark trial kicked off on Monday over the use by Donald Trump's administration of National Guard forces to support its deportation efforts and quell protests in Los Angeles, in a legal challenge to the U.S. president's break from long-standing norms against deploying troops on American streets. The three-day non-jury trial before San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer will determine if the government violated a 19th century law that bars the military from civil law enforcement when Trump deployed the troops in June, as the state of California claims in its legal challenge. "The factual question which the court must address is whether the military was used to enforce domestic law, and if so, whether there continues to be a threat that it could be done again," Breyer said at the start of Monday's court hearing. Los Angeles experienced days of unrest and protests sparked by mass immigration raids at places where people gather to find work, like Home Depot stores, a garment factory and a warehouse. The administration denies that troops were used in civil law enforcement and plans to show that they were protecting federal property and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Many of the troops have been withdrawn, but California's Attorney General Rob Bonta said on Monday that 300 National Guard members are still going on immigration raids and restricting civilian movements in the state. The Trump administration last week extended the activation of troops in the Los Angeles area through November 6, according to a court filing by Gavin Newsom, the state's Democratic governor. "The federal government deployed military troops to the streets of Los Angeles for the purposes of political theater and public intimidation," Bonta said in a statement. "This dangerous move has no precedent in American history." California and Newsom have asked Breyer to prohibit the troops from directly participating in domestic law enforcement activities. They say the National Guard is accompanying ICE agents on raids and assisting in arrests, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and other laws that forbid the U.S. military from taking part in civilian law enforcement. The Republican president ordered 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June against Newsom's wishes. California's lawsuit ultimately seeks a ruling that would return its National Guard troops to state control and a declaration that Trump's action was illegal. The trial before Breyer will have limited impact, however, on Trump's plan to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington as part of a crackdown on violent crime in the U.S. capital city despite statistics showing that violent crime there hit a 30-year low in 2024. "I'm deploying the National Guard to help reestablish law, order and public safety in Washington, D.C.," Trump said on Monday. "And they're going to be allowed to do their job properly." Unlike in California and other states, where the governor typically decides when to activate Guard troops, the president directly controls the National Guard in Washington. A ruling against the administration could restrict the actions of those troops and constrain Trump if he deploys such forces to police other American cities. Trump said his efforts to fight crime will go beyond Washington and he has mentioned Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Baltimore. Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tensions in the second-most-populous U.S. city. A U.S. appeals court has allowed Trump to retain control of California's National Guard during the legal challenge.
