Protesters rally outside Social Security Admin building
The demonstration was organized by 'Indivisible Colorado Springs,' a grassroots political group focused on educating and empowering the community to push for progressive change at the local, state, and national levels.
Protestors rallied in support of critical government programs like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which they say are under threat. Among those in attendance was former Colorado Springs City Council member Yolanda Avila, who came out to make her voice heard.
'It's so important that we all speak up,' said Avila. 'Now it's already getting too late. People's benefits, Social Security benefits, which they earn, which they paid into, which they trusted, and the government to deliver once they need it. Social Security is being threatened and taken away.'
According to the Associated Press, the Trump administration has eliminated about 7,000 Social Security Administration positions since taking office as part of a broader effort to reduce government size, streamline bureaucracy, and align federal agencies with America-first policies.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles defends Jennings settlement, makes the case for reelection
Many candidates describe Charlotte City Council as dysfunctional and lacking in transparency, but as Mayor Vi Lyles seeks a fifth term, she wants to improve that perception. However, she says she's standing by the decision to settle with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Johnny Jennings. The city is paying more than $300,000 to its top cop after Jennings says he was mistreated by former councilmember Tariq Bokhari during the councilman's quest to secure outer carrier vests. PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Charlotte City Council settles with Chief Johnny Jennings The settlement sparked controversy when the city refused to disclose until Jennings made it public under pressure. Channel 9's Joe Bruno sat down with the mayor to talk about the state of the city and her efforts to secure her fifth term this November. Lyles: 'I believe that we treat people fairly. If you know, in our HR programs, and all of the things that we do, that Johnny isn't any different than other people that we've actually had these kinds of contracts with. I just tell you, by the person that he is, is because he gave the media the story, and it wasn't something that we would have done.' Bruno: 'So the city never would have revealed this?' Lyles: 'We'd have to ask a lawyer that, and I'm not a lawyer today.' She's the mayor today and wants to call herself that a year from now. As she campaigns for another term, she is aggressively backing the sales tax increase for transit. She says she also understands public safety needs to be a priority. Bruno: 'How safe do you consider Charlotte?' Lyles: 'I think it all depends on where you live and what you're doing and whether or not we have a program for you at this time.' She says if given another term, she wants to see the city prioritize addressing homelessness. 'I think the housing of the unhoused is one of the things that we have to tackle pretty immediately,' she said. Her fifth term isn't guaranteed. She's facing four challengers in the Democratic primary, but she says her work isn't finished and she's prepared to make the case to voters. Charlotte's city council primaries are Sept. 9. Early voting began Thursday. Before you head to the voting booth, check out our Political Beat Candidate Guide. We asked every candidate key questions on topics that matter to you. VIDEO: Where you can vote early in Charlotte for the primary election Solve the daily Crossword
American Press
26 minutes ago
- American Press
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out the massive financial penalty a state judge imposed on President Donald Trump, while narrowly upholding a finding he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory.' 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' he wrote. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A sharply divided panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive.' After finding Trump flagrantly padded financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — bring the total to $527 million, with interest. An 'excessive' fine 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause on any punishments taking effect. The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against Trump and his companies was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated, they could have sued him themselves, and none did. One judge wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial began that the attorney general had proved Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, who was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. George Pataki, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,' Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' In a statement, James focused on the part of the case that went her way, saying the court had 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' 'It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,' James said. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. Claims of politics at play Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' The Republican has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D. Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. Legal obstacles The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.
Los Angeles Times
26 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Uganda agrees to take deported migrants from U.S. if they don't have criminal records
KAMPALA, Uganda — Uganda has agreed to a deal with the United States to take deported migrants as long as they don't have criminal records and are not unaccompanied minors, the foreign ministry said Thursday. The ministry said in a statement that the agreement had been concluded but that terms were still being worked out. It added that Uganda prefers that the migrants sent there be of African nationalities, but did not elaborate on what Uganda might get in return for accepting deportees. The U.S. Embassy in Uganda declined to comment on what it called 'diplomatic negotiations,' but said that diplomats were seeking to uphold President Trump's 'policy of keeping Americans safe.' The Trump administration has been seeking ways to deter migrants from entering the country illegally and to deport those who already have done so, especially those with criminal records and including those who cannot easily be deported to their home country. Human rights activists criticized the deportee deal as possibly going against international law. Henry Okello Oryem, Uganda's state minister for foreign affairs, on Wednesday had denied that any agreement on deportees had been reached, though he said his government was in discussions about 'visas, tariffs, sanctions, and related issues.' He also suggested that his country would draw the line at accepting people associated with criminal groups. 'We are talking about cartels: people who are unwanted in their own countries. How can we integrate them into local communities in Uganda?' he said at the time. Oryem and other Ugandan government officials declined to comment Thursday. Opposition lawmaker Muwada Nkunyingi suggested that such a deal with the United States would give the Ugandan government legitimacy ahead of elections, and urged Washington not to turn a blind eye toward what he described as human rights and governance issues in Uganda. Uganda's leaders will rush into a deal to 'clear their image now that we are heading into the 2026 elections,' Nkunyingi said. Human rights lawyer Nicholas Opio likened a deportee deal to human trafficking, and said it would leave the status of the deportees unclear. 'Are they refugees or prisoners?' he said. 'The proposed deal runs afoul of international law. We are sacrificing human beings for political expediency; in this case because Uganda wants to be in the good books of the United States,' he said. 'That I can keep your prisoners if you pay me; how is that different from human trafficking?' In July, the U.S. deported five men with criminal backgrounds to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini and sent eight more to South Sudan. The men from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen and Vietnam sent to Eswatini are being held in solitary confinement until they can be deported to their home countries, which could take up to a year. A legal challenge in the U.S had halted the deportation process of the eight men in South Sudan but a Supreme Court ruling eventually cleared the way for them to be sent to South Sudan. Uganda has had challenges with the U.S. after lawmakers passed an anti-homosexuality bill in 2023 that punishes consensual same-sex conduct with penalties including life imprisonment. Washington threatened consequences and the World Bank withheld some funding. In May 2024, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Uganda's parliamentary speaker, her husband and several other officials over corruption and serious abuses of human rights.
