Minnesota gunman arrested after deadly attacks on state Democrats
NewsFeed Minnesota gunman arrested after deadly attacks on state Democrats
Vance Boelter, a former state board appointee, was arrested Sunday after allegedly killing ex-House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, and wounding Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, ending the largest manhunt in Minnesota's history.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump's cabinet is less hawkish. Will that affect his Israel-Iran response?
Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump has surrounded himself with a cabinet and inner circle that is markedly less hawkish on Iran than during his first term. But analysts told Al Jazeera that it remains unclear whether the composition of Trump's new cabinet will make a difference when it comes to how the administration responds to the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel. Last week, fighting erupted when Israel launched surprise strikes on Tehran, prompting Iran to retaliate. That exchange of missiles and blasts has threatened to spiral into a wider regional war. 'I think there are fewer of the traditional Republican hawks in this administration,' said Brian Finucane, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, a think tank. 'And you do have more prominent restraint-oriented or restraint-adjacent people.' 'The question is: How loud are they going to be?' So far, the Trump administration has taken a relatively hands-off approach to Israel's attacks, which Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed were 'unilateral'. While the US has surged military assets to the region, it has avoided being directly involved in the confrontation. Trump also publicly opposed an Israeli strike on Iran in the weeks leading up to the attacks, saying he preferred diplomacy. However, on Sunday, Trump told ABC News, 'It's possible we could get involved,' citing the risk to US forces in the region. He has even framed Israel's bombing campaign as an asset in the ongoing talks to curtail Iran's nuclear programme, despite several top negotiators being killed by Israeli strikes. Iran's foreign minister, meanwhile, accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of 'playing' Trump and US taxpayers for 'fools', saying the US president could end the fighting with 'one phone call' to the Israeli leader. Analysts agree that any course of action Trump takes will likely transform the conflict. It will also reveal how Trump is responding to the deep ideological rift within his Republican base. One side of that divide embraces Trump's 'America First' ideology: the idea that the US's domestic interests come before all others. That perspective largely eschews foreign intervention. The other side of Trump's base supports a neoconservative approach to foreign policy: one that is more eager to pursue military intervention, sometimes with the aim of forcing regime change abroad. Both viewpoints are represented among Trump's closest advisers. Vice President JD Vance, for instance, stands out as an example of a Trump official who has called for restraint, both in terms of Iran and US support for Israel. In March, Vance notably objected to US strikes on Yemen's Houthis, as evidenced in leaked messages from a private chat with other officials on the app Signal. In that conversation, Vance argued that the bombing campaign was a 'mistake' and 'inconsistent' with Trump's message of global disengagement. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Vance also warned that the US and Israel's interests are 'sometimes distinct… and our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran'. According to experts, that kind of statement is rare to hear from a top official in the Republican Party, where support for Israel remains largely sacrosanct. Finucane, for instance, called Vance's statements 'very notable'. 'I think his office may be a critical one in pushing for restraint,' he added. Other Trump officials have similarly built careers railing against foreign intervention, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that the US 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon'. Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, who had virtually no previous diplomatic experience, had also floated the possibility of normalising relations with Tehran in the early days of the US-led nuclear talks. By contrast, Secretary of State and acting National Security Adviser Marco Rubio established himself as a traditional neoconservative, with a 'tough on Iran' stance, during his years-long tenure in the Senate. But since joining the Trump administration, Rubio has not broken ranks with the president's 'America First' foreign policy platform. That loyalty is indicative of a wider tendency among Trump's inner circle during his second term, according to Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. 'I think Trump 2.0 has a cabinet of chameleons whose primary qualification is loyalty and fealty to Trump more than anything else,' he told Al Jazeera. Katulis noted that the days of officials who stood up to Trump, like former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, were mostly gone — a relic of Trump's first term, from 2017 to 2021. The current defence secretary, former Fox News host Pete Hegseth, has shown an appetite for conducting aerial strikes on groups aligned with Iran, including the Houthis in Yemen. But Hegseth told Fox News on Saturday that the president continues to send the message 'that he prefers peace, he prefers a solution to this that is resolved at the table'. All told, Trump continues to operate in an administration that is 'probably more hawkish than MAGA antiwar', according to Ryan Costello, the policy director at the National Iranian American Council, a lobby group. At least one official, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, has sought to equate Iran's retaliation against Israel with the targeting of US interests, highlighting the large number of US citizens who live in Israel. Costello acknowledges that Trump's first term likewise had its fair share of foreign policy hawks. Back then, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, his replacement Robert O'Brien and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo all advocated for militarised strategies to deal with Tehran. 'But there's a big difference between Trump's first term, when he elevated and very hawkish voices on Iran, and Trump's second term,' Costello said. He believes that this time, scepticism over US involvement in the Middle East extends throughout the ranks of the administration. Costello pointed to a recent conflict between the head of US Central Command, General Michael Kurilla, and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby. The news outlet Semafor reported on Sunday that Kurilla was pushing to shift more military assets to the Middle East to defend Israel, but that Colby had opposed the move. That schism, Costello argues, is part of a bigger shift in Trump's administration and in the Republican Party at large. 'You have many prominent voices making the case that these wars of choice pursued by neoconservatives have been bankrupting Republican administrations and preventing them from focusing on issues that really matter,' Costello said. Finucane has also observed a pivot from Trump's first term to his second. In 2019, during his first four years as president, Finucane said that Trump's national security team gave an 'apparently unanimous recommendation' to strike Iran after it targeted a US surveillance drone. Trump ultimately backed away from the plan in the final hours, according to multiple reports. But a year later, the Trump administration assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike in Iraq, another instance that brought the US to the brink of war. To be sure, experts say Trump has a notoriously mercurial approach to policy. The last person to speak to the president, observers have long said, will likely wield the most influence. Trump also regularly seeks guidance from outside the White House when faced with consequential decisions, consulting mainstream media like Fox News, breakaway far-right pundits, social media personalities and top donors. That was the case ahead of the possible 2019 US strike on Iran, with then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson reportedly among those urging Trump to back away from the attack. Carlson has since been a leading voice calling for Trump to drop support for the 'war-hungry government' of Netanyahu, urging the president to let Israeli officials 'fight their own wars'. But Carlson is not the only conservative media figure with influence over Trump. Conservative media host Mark Levin has advocated for military action against Iran, saying in recent days that Israel's attacks should be the beginning of a campaign to overthrow Iran's government. Politico reported that Levin visited the White House for a private lunch with Trump in early June, just days before the US president offered his support for Iran's strikes. But Katulis at the Middle East Institute predicted that neither Trump's cabinet nor media figures like Levin would prove to be the most consequential in guiding the president's choices. Instead, Trump's decision on whether to engage in the Israel-Iran conflict is likely to come down to which world leader gets his ear, and when. 'It's a favourite Washington parlour game to pretend like the cabinet members and staffers matter more than they actually do,' Katulis told Al Jazeera. 'But I think, in the second Trump administration, it's less who's on his team formally and more who has he talked to most recently – whether it's Netanyahu in Israel or some other leader in the region,' he said. 'I think that's going to be more of a determining factor in what the United States decides to do next.'
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
American Bar Association sues to block Trump's attacks on law firms
The American Bar Association (ABA) has sued the administration of US President Donald Trump, seeking an order that would prevent the White House from pursuing what it called a campaign of intimidation against major law firms. The lawsuit, filed on Monday in a federal court in Washington, DC, alleged that the administration violated the United States Constitution by issuing a series of executive orders targeting law firms over their past clients and employees. According to the complaint, those executive orders were used to 'to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the President does not like'. Dozens of executive agencies and US officials are named in the suit, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Kash Patel and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. In a statement, the ABA — the country's largest voluntary association for lawyers — called Trump's attacks on law firms 'uniquely destructive'. 'Without skilled lawyers to bring and argue cases, the judiciary cannot function as a meaningful check on the executive branch,' the association wrote. Four law firms have separately sued the administration over President Trump's orders, which stripped their lawyers of security clearances and restricted their access to government officials and federal contracting work. Four different judges in Washington have sided with the firms and temporarily or permanently barred Trump's orders against them. One of the firms that sued and won a preliminary victory, Susman Godfrey, is representing the ABA in Monday's lawsuit. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields responded to Monday's lawsuit with a statement calling it 'clearly frivolous'. He added that the ABA has no power over the president's discretion to award government contracts and security clearances to law firms. 'The Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on this issue,' Fields said. Despite Trump's court losses, nine law firms have struck deals with the president, pledging to offer nearly $1bn in free legal services to stave off similar executive orders. Monday's lawsuit escalates a clash between the ABA and the Trump administration, which has cut some government funding to the group and has moved to restrict its role in vetting federal judicial nominees. In March, Bondi — the chief law enforcement officer in the US — warned the group that it could lose its role in accrediting law schools unless it cancels a requirement related to student diversity.
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US judge declares Trump's cuts to NIH grants ‘illegal'
A Massachusetts federal judge has declared that cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants made by the administration of US President Donald Trump are 'illegal' and 'void,' and ordered that many of the grants be restored. In a ruling issued on Monday, Judge William Young vacated the terminations that began in late February and said the NIH violated federal law by arbitrarily cancelling more than $1bn in research grants because of their perceived connection to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Young told the court there could be little doubt the cuts represent 'racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community', according to quotes published on X by Politico reporter Kyle Cheney. In April, a group of researchers sued the NIH, saying hundreds of critical research projects were halted due to an 'ideological purge'. The plaintiffs argued that the reasons given for the terminations – connections with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' and 'gender identity' – were vague and lacking in concrete explanation. Terminated grants included programmes focusing on women, racial minorities and the health of health of gay, lesbian and transgender people, but also included studies on cancer, youth suicide and bone health. The government has argued that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the NIH has discretion to set its own priorities. Young said he was reinstating grants that had been awarded to organisations and Democratic-led states that sued over the terminations. And the judge strongly suggested that as the case proceeds, he could issue a more sweeping decision. Young, who was appointed by US President Ronald Reagan, offered a harsh rebuke to the government, saying that in his 40 years on the bench, he had 'never seen evidence of racial discrimination like this'. The ruling comes almost a week after Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), admitted that the Trump administration had gone too far in slashing biomedical research grants and said efforts were under way to restore some of the funding Bhattacharya made the remarks Tuesday during a Senate committee hearing examining both recent cuts to his agency and deeper reductions proposed by the White House in next year's budget. 'I didn't take this job to terminate grants,' said the physician and health economist, who left a professorship at Stanford University to join the Trump administration. 'I took this job to make sure that we do the research that advances the health needs of the American people,' he said, adding that he had created an appeals process for scientists and laboratories whose research was impacted, and that the NIH had already 'reversed many' of the cuts.
