Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida promises a ‘zero tolerance policy' if protests aren't peaceful.
Mr. DeSantis said in a podcast recorded on Wednesday that the state had a 'zero tolerance policy' for protests that block roads or intersections. He cited a Florida law passed in 2021 in response to the protests over the murder of George Floyd.
'If you're driving on one of those streets and a mob comes and surrounds your vehicle and threatens you, you have a right to flee for your safety,' Mr. DeSantis told a conservative podcast host, Dave Rubin. 'And so if you drive off and you hit one of these people, that's their fault for impinging on you.'
At the time that the law was passed, civil liberty advocates said it could criminalize peaceful protests. The Florida Supreme Court ruled last year that nonviolent protesters and bystanders could not be held criminally liable under a provision of the law.
On Thursday, James Uthmeier, Florida's Republican attorney general, held a news conference in Titusville 'to put the public on notice' about the state's hard-line policies. He was joined by Sheriff Wayne Ivey of Brevard County, who spoke in even starker terms than the governor.
'If you throw a brick, a fire bomb or point a gun at one of our deputies,' he said, 'we will be notifying your family where to collect your remains at, because we will kill you graveyard dead.' He added, 'We're not going to play.'
Protests against immigration raids that began in Los Angeles last week have expanded to other cities around the country, though few have taken place in Florida. There have been some scattered instances in other states of protesters throwing rocks and lighting cars on fire, although many protesters have been peaceful. Police intervened at a protest in downtown Tampa, Fla., on Monday after people protesting immigration enforcement clashed with counter protesters who back Mr. Trump.
On Wednesday, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said it had arrested a 26-year-old man for responding to a post on social media about the protests. The man wrote that if he saw any protesters, he would 'plow through' with a tow truck.
Demonstrations are planned across the state on Saturday as part of a national effort to oppose some of President Trump's policies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs face key test at US appeals court
By Dietrich Knauth (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court on Thursday will review President Donald Trump's power to impose tariffs, after a lower court said he exceeded his authority with sweeping levies on imported goods. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., will consider the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. A panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents, will hear arguments scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. ET in two cases brought by five small U.S. businesses and 12 Democratic-led U.S. states. The arguments - one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all U.S. trading partners - mark the first test before a U.S. appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under emergency presidential powers that Trump cited to justify them. They say the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. Trump claimed broad authority to set tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets. Trump is the first president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent U.S. trade imbalances and declining U.S. manufacturing power. He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing U.S. borders. The countries have denied that claim. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies, did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted U.S. companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Mobile wants to sell you telehealth, car care and insurance
By Akash Sriram and Aditya Soni (Reuters) -Hours after the high-profile launch of Trump Mobile, a new Trump-branded mobile service provider, in June, callers to the company's customer support line were greeted with, "Omega Auto Care, how can I help you?" Two calls placed by Reuters that day to the mobile service's helpline rang to the Missouri-based auto-warranty company, which is part of Ensurety Ventures, a St. Louis, Missouri firm led by entrepreneur Pat O'Brien, who was introduced by Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. on June 16 as a member of the launch team providing "customer support and device protection" for Trump Mobile. Today, calls to the support line are answered by people who identify themselves as Trump Mobile support staff, but the first-day confusion speaks to the dizzying speed with which the Trump family has scrambled to set up the businesses. In addition to Trump Mobile, the family has established several ventures since President Donald Trump was elected to a second term in November. These include 12 new overseas development deals, a Trump-branded bible, a crypto trading platform World Liberty Financial - which has netted the president's family about $500 million since launch - a $TRUMP meme coin, and a stablecoin USD1. Trump Mobile is what's known as a mobile virtual network operator, or MVNO, which has grown in popularity in recent years as various celebrities and causes leverage their cultural clout to launch branded wireless ventures. T-Mobile, for instance, acquired Ryan Reynolds-backed Mint Mobile for up to $1.35 billion in May. Jason Bateman, Will Arnett and Sean Hayes, the actors behind the hit SmartLess podcast, announced SmartLess Mobile in June. At the launch of Trump Mobile, Eric and Donald Trump Jr. introduced the team, including O'Brien, Don Hendrickson, a telecom executive who will serve as Trump Mobile's head of mobile operations, and Eric Thomas, a Utah-based entrepreneur entrusted with 'device operations," as having "hundreds of years" of telecom experience between them. The service, pitched by the Trumps for "hardworking Americans," will bundle telemedicine services and roadside assistance, along with a gold-toned, $499 smartphone dubbed T1 "designed and built in the United States," which a spokesperson says will be manufactured at facilities in Alabama, California and Florida. The company is charging $100 to "get in line" to buy the phone as soon as it ships. A Reuters review of the backgrounds of the Trump Mobile team reveals an interconnected web of companies owned by the three men that will form the core of the company's offering to consumers. The Trump Phone will ship bundled with an array of services provided by companies connected to O'Brien's Ensurety Ventures, Hendrickson and Thomas, including roadside assistance, device protection, and telehealth services, including "easy ordering" of prescription medications, according to its website. Reached by phone, O'Brien would not disclose the type of phone that will ship to users but did say it would run on Google's Android mobile operating system. "The plan is going to be able to have the phone done by September and launching where we're fulfilling orders in early October," O'Brien said. He added that the brand will initially launch one phone and eventually develop many devices, adding that the T1 has gotten a lot of pre-orders. He did not specify how many. From the start, telecom industry experts challenged the notion that the phone - or any competitive mobile device - could be built in the U.S. "Domestically manufacturing a smartphone in the USA could easily double its price compared to a similar one made in Asia," said Ken Hyers, Director of Market Analysis at TechInsights. Within days of the announcement, Trump Mobile dropped the Made in USA claim from its website. Now, a Trump Mobile spokesperson said the T1 is being manufactured in three states with the goal of sourcing "as many materials and parts from the U.S. as the supply chain allows." "We will continue to build on that as more and more parts and equipment are made here in America," the spokesperson said. Eric and Donald Trump Jr. did not respond to a request for comment. Thomas did not respond to requests for comment and Hendrickson could not be reached for comment. VIRTUAL OPERATOR Rather than building a telecom operation from scratch, Trump Mobile's wireless service will run on Liberty Mobile's network, a "virtual" network that leases cellular capacity from major carriers such as Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile, and is co-owned by the three members of the launch team, O'Brien, Thomas and Hendrickson. The company has not disclosed subscriber numbers, and O'Brien declined to provide them to Reuters. Incorporated in 2018 and registered to a condo in Trump Tower Miami, Liberty's service appears to be nascent, offering older smartphone models such as the iPhone 11. Its LinkedIn profile shows it has fewer than 50 employees and its website displays the text "lorem ipsum," typical placeholder text used to design pages before the content is final. Liberty's most recent annual filing in Florida dated February 7, 2025, lists Matthew Lopatin as its CEO and president, an entrepreneur who has founded and owns several businesses in Florida, filings show. Liberty and Lopatin did not respond to requests for comment. Hendrickson is listed as executive vice president of sales of Liberty Mobile. His son, Christian Hendrickson, worked at Liberty during the pandemic, according to his LinkedIn profile. Christian Hendrickson did not respond to a request for comment. BUNDLED SERVICES Among the services that will be bundled with the phone is VMed Mobile, a company jointly owned by O'Brien, Hendrickson and Thomas that sells portable wellness trackers and telehealth subscriptions, O'Brien said. The company certifies its products through a Shenzhen, China-based subsidiary, according to FCC filings on the company's website. O'Brien told Reuters he has been "personally involved" in Liberty Mobile for three years and that Liberty originally reached out to him to provide health tracking services. Liberty's website lists VMed Mobile as a service. Telehealth services for Trump Mobile will be provided by Doctegrity, according to its website. Doctegrity is a Texas-based telehealth subscription platform led by Jesse Ohayon, according to his LinkedIn profile and a YouTube posted months ago. Ohayon and Doctegrity did not respond to requests for comment. O'Brien's Ensurety Ventures controls roadside assistance provider Drive America and device insurance vendor Omega Mobile Care, two other services advertised by Trump Mobile. A separate webpage for the Omega Mobile Care lists three device protection plans for cracked screens between $100 and $300. Drive America, founded in 1968 and once owned by Ford Motor and Citi Group, serves 12 million customers, according to its website. Omega Auto Care, the company that picked up the phone on Trump Mobile launch day, provides vehicle service contracts and extended warranties that cover the cost of repairs for a car's mechanical breakdowns after its factory warranty expires. "We are providing products through that relationship that people normally have to pay upward of $30 per month or more to receive those benefits," O'Brien said. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
National nonprofits push back against changes to law banning churches in politics
A growing group of nonprofits, including a number of major religious organizations, have signed onto a letter urging President Donald Trump to object to recent changes made to a decades-old law governing how churches can be involved in politics. The Internal Revenue Service said in court filings on July 7 that churches and other religious 501(c)(3) organizations can endorse political candidates in certain circumstances, a major reversal of norms under the Johnson Amendment, which has banned political activity by churches since 1954. On a July 30 call, a number of organizations including the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, the National Council of Nonprofits, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Interfaith Alliance and more announced their alarm regarding what they called a potential erosion of the separation of church and state. More: IRS lifts ban on churches getting involved in politics and endorsements: What to know 'The undersigned organizations write to object to efforts by your administration to ignore long-standing federal law by attempting to exempt houses of worship and religious organizations from the Johnson Amendment, which clearly prohibits 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations from endorsing or opposing partisan political candidates for public office,' the letter reads. 'These efforts undermine one of the most trusted sections of civil society – nonpartisan houses of worship and charitable nonprofits.' The IRS's new position on the rule was made in a joint filing intended to end a lawsuit brought by a group of high-profile Christian organizations last year, including the National Religious Broadcasters and Intercessors for America, along with two Texas churches. In the filing, the IRS stated that political endorsements made by a church would not be seen as 'participating' or 'intervening' in political campaigns, but instead as a 'family discussion concerning politics.' 'When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither 'participate(s)' nor 'intervene(s)' in a 'political campaign,' within the ordinary meaning of those words,' the agency stated in the filing. The group of opposing nonprofits disagreed with this stance, stating that politics would quickly move from internal conversations to overwhelming pressure. 'If the court approves this settlement, houses of worship would be subject to intense political pressure to engage in electoral politics from down ballot races and primaries to the presidency, distracting them from their missions,' the letter stated. 'It would also create a loophole for the political donors to enjoy tax deductible donations for their political campaign contributions, exploiting houses of worship for political gains.' A news release regarding the call states that nearly 1,000 other organizations have already signed on to the letter, which will be open until Aug. 8. Holly Hollman, general counsel and associate executive director at the Baptist Joint Committee, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit that was founded in part by the Southern Baptist Convention before the two split, affirmed the organization's opposition to the changes. '(Attempts to change the Johnson Amendment) have failed previously because they are unpopular, unnecessary, unwise and unwanted,' she said. 'Often, they are promoted based on a misinterpretation of the law in an attempt to say houses of worship are somehow prevented in free speech, while yet we know that houses of worship on a daily basis are using their free speech and their freedom of religion to take care of their communities.' The Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have filed a motion to intervene on the pending settlement between the IRS and the group of Christian organizations, asking the court to be allowed to intervene as a defendant to defend the Johnson Amendment. The group also asked that the court 'reject the proposed settlement because it would grant favor and privilege to religious organizations and treat them differently than secular nonprofits– an unconstitutional violation of church-state separation.' 'This longstanding, commonsense rule protects the integrity of both our elections and nonprofits, including houses of worship. The majority of Americans don't want their charities and churches embroiled in the corrupting influence of partisan politics,' said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in a statement. Despite judicial support, Johnson Amendment sees strong pushback from conservative party The Johnson Amendment was a rule introduced by former President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954 when he was serving as the U.S. Senate Majority Leader. It banned all tax-exempt organizations like churches and charities from 'directly or indirectly' participating in politics, specifically in endorsement or opposition of candidates. The Amendment has seen repeated support by federal courts over the years. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the 1970s that a nonprofit religious organization was not entitled to a tax exemption because its actions, according to the court, sought to influence legislation and 'attack(ed) candidates and incumbents who were considered too liberal.' The ruling said the government has an 'overwhelming and compelling' interest in keeping the 'wall separating church and state ... high and firm.' Decades later, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that a religious organization that had its tax-exempt status revoked had 'failed to establish a First Amendment violation' in the case. Despite judicial affirmation of the standard, the rule has seen steady opposition — particularly by the Trump administration. Trump pledged in his first term to 'totally destroy' the Johnson Amendment and later claimed to have 'gotten rid of' the provision, but the law has remained part of the tax code. Trump did, however, direct the Treasury Department to avoid penalizing religious organizations for speech about 'moral or political issues from a religious perspective' in a May 2017 executive order. In response to the July 7 change to the rule, Trump called the move 'terrific.' "I love the fact that churches could endorse a political candidate," Trump told reporters at the White House, according to Reuters. "If somebody of faith wants to endorse, I think it's something that I'd like to hear." The support is not limited to the White House. Rep. Mark Harris, R-NC, and Sen. James Lankford, R-OK, introduced the Free Speech Fairness Act in March that sought to allow charitable organizations – which would include churches and other houses of worship − to make political statements 'if such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax-exempt purpose.' 'For too long, the Johnson Amendment has silenced pastors, churches and non-profits from engaging on moral and political issues of our day for fear of losing their tax-exempt status,' Harris said in a March news release. 'This attempt to muzzle people of faith must end – the Constitution is clear: Americans' right to free speech shall not be infringed.' Notably, speakers at the inaugural meeting of Trump's Religious Liberty Commission in June also supported challenges to the Johnson Amendment and expressed a belief that the First Amendment doesn't prevent the government from promoting religion as a social good. The USA TODAY Network - The South region's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Have a story to tell? Reach Angele Latham by email at alatham@ by phone at 931-623-9485, or follow her on Twitter at @angele_latham This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Nonprofits push back against changes to Johnson Amendment
