
Trump team ends $18m terrorism prevention program designed to ID lone wolves before they attack
The Trump administration is axing a division of the Department of Homeland Security designed to prevent domestic terrorism attacks committed by individual perpetrators and train officials to negate future attacks, worrying prevention advocates.
The Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3) was an arm of DHS that provided federal resources to local and state officials to thwart lone wolf attacks, an increasingly common type of terrorism.
In those instances, attacks are carried out by an individual not part of an organized group. Examples include the recent Boulder, Colorado attack in which a man threw incendiary devices at a group of Israeli hostage advocates as well as the murder of two young Isreali Embassy staffers outside the Captiol Jewish Museum.
CP3 aimed to reduce the instances of those attacks by understanding domestic violence trends, such as those tracked by the Terrorism and Targeted Violence database (TV2), and providing training through programs such as the Targeting Violence and Terrorism Prevention grant.
But President Donald Trump 's budget said DHS could re-allocate roughly $18 million by axing the center and its grants, which the administration claims 'were weaponized to target Americans exercising their First Amendment rights.'
The program, which NBC News estimates only costs 4 percent of the military's marching band budget, has been successful at stopping lone wolf attacks – though publicly available data on this is scarce.
In one instance, the Palm Beach Sheriff's Department, which received money through the Terrorism and Targeted Violence grant, was able to identify and detain an individual at Palm Beach State College who threatened mass violence.
But the Trump administration claims it does not align with president's policies and has proposed eliminating it.
Approximately 20 percent of CP3's staff was eliminated during federal funding cuts in March. In addition, the administration tapped a 22-year-old recent college graduate to lead CP3.
William Braniff, the former director of CP3, told the Guardian that the government is making itself more susceptible to attacks by getting rid of the program.
'It's simple: we will see more school and workplace violence, more hate-fueled violence and terrorism and our political leadership will see more assassination attempts,' Braniff said.
Joe Griffin, the executive director of Youth Alive!, a California-based violence prevention organization, told CBS News that cutting funding before summer would have a negative impact on communities.
"To do this ahead of summer, when we know there will likely be an uptick in violence, is really troubling," Griffin said. "We need our government to show up for our young people the way we do—every day, without fail."
In a statement, a senior DHS official refuted any concerns.
'Any suggestion that DHS is stepping away from addressing hate crimes or domestic terrorism is simply false. Under Secretary Noem's leadership DHS has streamlined funding to cut waste while strengthening our partnerships with state and local law enforcement to tackle these critical threats head-on,' the senior DHS official said.
Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House, said 'President Trump is keeping his promise to Make America Safe Again by empowering state and local law enforcement to relentlessly pursue criminals and protect American communities.'
'Whether it be maximizing the use of Federal resources to improve trainings or establishing task forces to advance Federal and local coordination, President Trump is keeping innocent Americans safe.' Jackson added.
She pointed to Trump's April executive order that called for providing pro bono legal assistance for officers facing unjust legal expenses, maximizing the use of federal resources to train officers, increasing surplus military assets to support local law enforcement, and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
40 minutes ago
- Reuters
US stock futures fall after Israel attacks Iran
June 13 (Reuters) - U.S. stock index futures dropped on Friday after Israel's military strike on Iran escalated tensions in the oil-rich Middle East and battered risk sentiment across global markets. Israel's widescale strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities were aimed at preventing Tehran from building an atomic weapon. Iran has promised a harsh response and retaliated by launching 100 drones. The escalation of tensions in the Middle East - a major oil-producing region - sent oil prices surging more than 6% and U.S. energy stocks rose in tandem, with Chevron (CVX.N), opens new tab and Exxon (XOM.N), opens new tab advancing nearly 3% in premarket trading. The strikes come just days ahead of a planned sixth round of nuclear talks between Iran and the United States. Tensions had been building as U.S. President Donald Trump's efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran appeared to be deadlocked. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the Israeli offensive a "unilateral action" and said Washington was not involved. At 04:32 a.m. ET, Dow E-minis were down 505 points, or 1.17%, S&P 500 E-minis were down 70.5 points, or 1.17%, and Nasdaq 100 E-minis were down 309.25 points, or 1.41%. A 1.6% slump in Russell futures pointed to sharp declines for domestically focused stocks. Airline stocks dipped as the surge in crude prices raised concerns about higher fuel costs. Delta Air Lines (DAL.N), opens new tab was down 3.9%, United Airlines (UAL.O), opens new tab dropped 4.8%, Southwest Airlines (LUV.N), opens new tab lost 2.5% and American Airlines (AAL.O), opens new tab declined 3.9%. Defense stocks rose, with Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), opens new tab up 4.7%, RTX Corporation (RTX.N), opens new tab up 5.5%, Northrop Grumman (NOC.N), opens new tab up 4.2% and L3harris Technologies (LHX.N), opens new tab up 4.3%. The S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab still remains just 1.8% below its record high reached earlier this year, following stellar monthly gains in May driven by upbeat corporate earnings and a softening in Trump's trade stance. The tech-heavy Nasdaq (.IXIC), opens new tab is about 2.8% off its record closing high reached in December last year. Investors are now focused on the Federal Reserve's meeting scheduled next week where policymakers are expected to keep interest rates unchanged.


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
HHS Enforcement Letter on DEI and ACA Section 1557 Compliance Practical Law The Journal
On May 6, 2025, HHS issued a 'Dear Colleague' letter addressing nondiscrimination requirements under: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (for more information, see ACA Section 1557 Compliance for Health Coverage Toolkit on Practical Law). The Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Directed at medical schools that receive federal funding from HHS, the letter focuses on the schools' use of race-based criteria in admissions and hiring (including under some DEI programs). (HHS, Dear Colleague Letter (May 6, 2025); HHS, Press Release (May 6, 2025).) ACA Section 1557 ACA Section 1557 prohibits individuals from being excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subject to discrimination under a health program or activity that receives federal financial assistance on specified grounds. Section 1557 incorporates the grounds for prohibited discrimination under four civil rights laws. One of these laws, as HHS notes in the May 2025 letter, is Title VI, which bars discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7; for more information, see June 2020 Final Regulations Under ACA Section 1557: Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities on Practical Law). The second Trump administration has expressly referenced ACA Section 1557 in recent investigatory announcements of race-based criteria and DEI programs, suggesting that these issues may eventually be addressed in additional proposed regulations under Section 1557 (for more information, see Trump Administration Investigates Hospitals' DEI Programs Using ACA Section 1557 on Practical Law). If so, the substantive scope of the next set of Section 1557 regulations will likely differ significantly from the version of these regulations finalized under the Biden administration one year ago (for more information, see ACA Section 1557 Compliance for Health Coverage Toolkit on Practical Law). Counsel should monitor Section 1557 guidance from the Trump administration and settlement agreements involving the administration's investigatory efforts in this space.


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Google takes a gamble in class action jury trial over cell phone data use
June 4 (Reuters) - Class actions rarely go to trial, which is why a case against Google is proving to be an outlier. The tech giant is defending itself before a jury in Santa Clara County, California, superior court in an $800 million lawsuit, opens new tab by Android smartphone users who say Google misappropriates their cellphone data. A jury of eight women and four men was seated on Tuesday in what lawyers say is expected to be a three-to-four-week trial, with opening statements kicking off on Wednesday. The stakes are high, but the class, which includes an estimated 14 million Californians whose mobile devices use Google's Android operating system, is in some ways just an appetizer. The same plaintiffs lawyers from Korein Tillery; Bartlit Beck and McManis Faulkner are litigating a parallel case in San Jose federal court covering Android users in the other 49 states, with billions of dollars in alleged damages. The plaintiffs in court papers say that even when their phones are turned off, Google causes Android devices to surreptitiously send information over cellular networks 'for Google's own purposes,' including targeted digital advertising. These transfers improperly eat up data that users purchase from their mobile carriers, the plaintiffs allege. Google spokesperson José Castañeda said the claims 'mischaracterize standard industry practices that help protect users and make phones more reliable,' he told me. 'We look forward to making our case in court." A unit of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet, Google has a well-used playbook for settling class actions. Earlier this week, for example, the company agreed to pay $500 million to resolve shareholder litigation — a move that comes on the heels of a $50 million deal in May to resolve class-wide allegations of racial bias against Black employees and a $100 million payout in March to a proposed class of advertisers who claimed they were overcharged for clicks on ads. So why is Google taking this case to trial? In court papers, Google's outside counsel from Cooley argue that Android users incurred no actual losses, and that consumers consented to Google's so-called 'passive' data transfers via terms of service agreements and device settings. The lawyers also dispute the fundamental premise of the case: that cellular data allowances can be considered 'property' under California law and subject to conversion, a civil cause of action that involves taking a person's property without permission. When the 'rhetoric and hyperbole are set aside, Plaintiffs' theory is revealed as little more than a (misguided) product design claim — not wrongful conversion,' defense counsel wrote. The Cooley team, which includes Whitty Somvichian, Michael Attanasio, Max Bernstein and Carrie Lebel, declined comment. The plaintiffs sued Google in Santa Clara County Superior Court in 2019, asserting that they have a property interest in their cellular plans' data allowances, and that each quantum they pay for has a market value. They don't object to data transmissions when they're actively engaged with Google's apps and properties, like checking email or playing a game. But they say Google never told them it would avail itself of their cellular data when they weren't using their phones to send and receive a range of information on their usage. 'The upshot is that these phone users unknowingly subsidize the same Google advertising business that earns over $200 billion a year,' plaintiffs lawyer George Zelcs of Korein Tillery said via email. In addition to injunctive relief, the plaintiffs want Google to reimburse them for the value of the cellular data the company consumed. Per person, the amount is modest – 1 to 1.5 megabytes of data each day, the plaintiffs estimate. To put that in context, Americans used just over 100 trillion megabytes of wireless data in 2023, my Reuters colleagues reported. But with a class period dating back to 2016, the totals add up quickly. In court papers, Google lawyers sound almost incredulous at the amount of the claimed nationwide damages, which they say runs in the tens of billions — more than the $7.4 billion Perdue Pharma settlement for the opioid crisis, they note. "Plaintiffs cannot show remotely commensurate harm to the class," they wrote. In denying Google's motion for summary judgment in May, Judge Charles Adams allowed the plaintiffs' claim for conversion to go forward, ruling there are triable issues of material fact for jurors to decide. While Adams said no direct state law precedent exists as to whether cell phone data is property, he pointed to a decision, opens new tab by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year in the parallel federal class action, Taylor v Google. In that case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi in San Jose sided with Google and dismissed the complaint, opens new tab with prejudice in 2022, only to be reversed and remanded on appeal. The appellate panel in an unpublished decision ruled that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged they incurred damages when Google used their cellular data. Adams in a pre-trial order set some limits on what the lawyers will be allowed to argue to the jury. Plaintiffs may not suggest Google engages in "surveillance" of Android users, he wrote, or that the data transfers are a privacy violation. As for Google, Adams said, it 'must not present evidence or argument suggesting that this case is 'lawyer driven' or was 'invented' by Plaintiffs' counsel.'