LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

VICTORIA — When the British Columbia government fired the Greater Victoria school board last week, it effectively made police liaison programs mandatory in schools while failing to provide a factual basis for the decision, the B.C. Human Rights commissioner said in a letter.

Kasari Govender said in the letter to Education Minister Lisa Beare and Public Safety Minister Gary Begg that failure to fund research into the matter is contrary to the government’s human rights obligations “and undermines its stated values to combat racism.”

The letter dated Monday came after Beare fired the entire elected board of School District No. 61 last Thursday over its refusal to allow police in schools except in emergencies.

Neither Beare nor Begg were immediately available for comment.

“The decision to fire SD61 board members — and effectively make (School Police Liaison Officer) programs mandatory across the province — was ostensibly based on concerns about student safety, and yet the lack of transparency in this process belies a commitment to evidence-based decision-making,” Govender said.

The commissioner said there are “significant gaps” in evidence supporting school police liaison officers and there is not enough research to say definitively whether police presence in schools keeps young people safe and thriving.

“What is being called into question is the benefit of the role of police when the objective is simply to build relationships with children and youth, and if it outweighs the potential harms,” Govender wrote.

It is “past time” for funding of research into police in schools, and that an evidence-based policy is more effective and likely to avoid bias, Govender said.

The former board of the school district said its ban on police was based on reports that some students and teachers — particularly those who are Indigenous or people of colour — did not feel safe with officers in schools.

Beare appointed a lone trustee to oversee the district until municipal elections set for the fall of 2026.

She said last week that students in the Victoria district were at risk from the board’s failure to implement a revised safety plan.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 4, 2025.

Marcy Nicholson, The Canadian Press


WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge is expected to rule Tuesday on a request to temporarily block prison officials from transferring three incarcerated transgender women to men’s facilities and terminating their access to hormone therapy under an executive order signed by President Donald Trump.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, D.C. said he plans to issue a written ruling after hearing a plaintiffs’ attorney argue that Trump’s order discriminates against transgender people and violates their constitutional rights.

The judge is presiding over a lawsuit filed on behalf of three transgender women who were housed in women’s facilities before Trump signed the order on Jan. 20, his first day back in the White House.

On Jan. 26, a federal judge in Boston issued a restraining order in a separate challenge to the same executive order. That order was limited to one transgender women in a woman’s prison.

Trump’s order requires the federal Bureau of Prisons to ensure that “males are not detained in women’s prisons.” It also requires the bureau to revise its medical care policies so that federal funds aren’t spent “for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.”

Justice Department attorney John Robinson said prison officials have “broad discretion” to decide where to place inmates.

Moving the women to a men’s prison would jeopardize their safety and expose them to psychological harm, plaintiffs’ attorneys argued.

Trump’s order would disrupt the plaintiffs’ access to hormone therapy for their gender dysphoria, the distress that a person may feel because their assigned gender and gender identity don’t match. The medical condition has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.

The plaintiffs, who are identified by pseudonyms in court filings, are represented by attorneys from the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights and Boston-based GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, also known as GLAD Law.

The plaintiffs were housed in women’s units for months or years until January, when they were removed from the general population of women’s prisons and segregated with other transgender women to await transfers to men’s facilities.

“They were terrified at the prospect of these transfers given the serious risk of violence and sexual assault that they face in these men’s facilities,” GLAD attorney Jennifer Levi told the judge.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that Trump’s order violates their clients’ constitutional rights to equal protection of laws and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

“There is no way to keep these women safe outside of a women’s prison.” Levi said. “We are just asking this court to maintain the status quo.”

Robinson said the plaintiffs haven’t been denied any medical care since Trump signed the order. The Bureau of Prisons hasn’t decided where to transfer them yet, he added.

“I don’t want to get out ahead of BOP interpreting this executive order,” Robinson said.

Lamberth, a senior judge, was nominated by then-President Ronald Regan in 1987.

Michael Kunzelman, The Associated Press


ATLANTA (AP) — A day after Georgia Republican House Speaker Jon Burns unveiled school safety legislation, Democrats and families from Apalachee High School said they want more — namely, gun safety laws.

Both efforts to curb the gun violence come months after a mass shooting at Apalachee, the school northeast of Atlanta where a 14-year-old boy stands accused of killing two teachers and two students and wounding several others last Sept. 4.

The morning of the shooting, senior Isabel Trejo was fretting about an upcoming test while in math class with teacher Richard “Ricky” Aspinwall. He died later that day, one of the four fatal victims. When the shooting started, Trejo told lawmakers at the Capitol on Tuesday, “the minutes that followed felt like an eternity.”

“I huddled under a desk mentally preparing myself for the shooter to come into my classroom and start firing,” Trejo said.

Trejo joined with Apalachee families and Ishmael “Junior” Angulo, whose brother Christian Angulo died in the shooting, to support Johns Creek Democratic Rep. Michelle Au and others who are calling for greater gun regulation in a state with some of the nation’s most permissive gun laws.

They praised Burns’ efforts but said the state needs gun safety laws to prevent another tragic shooting.

“Speaker Burns’ plan focuses on what happens when a firearm is already in a school. Dr. Au’s bill ensures that firearms are secure so they don’t get there in the first place,” said Layla Renee Contreras, a former Apalachee student with Change for Chee, a community group created after the shooting to advocate for school safety.

According to research from Johns Hopkins, Georgia had the eighth-highest gun homicide rate in 2022 and firearms were the leading cause of death for young people ages 1-17.

Democrats have pushed for gun control with little success. Republicans, who control the state House and Senate, have resisted most of those efforts. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp’s loud support for gun rights helped him win his election and brought him national attention. In 2022, he signed a law allowing people to carry a handgun without a state-issued permit.

All of this went on before the shooting at Apalachee, though. Some Democrats hope the tragedy will spur enough Republicans to heed their call for action.

“The families of Apalachee and Barrow County have not moved on, and we owe it to them to give this issue the attention and the work it deserves, even in an environment where the challenges to progress seem daunting,” Au said.

Au proposed tax credits up to $300 for purchasing safe storage devices, such as gun safes and trigger locks. Burns says he supports tax incentives. A bipartisan group of lawmakers passed those credits in the House last year and the Senate passed a similar bill, but neither made it through the other chamber.

Au also proposed processes for background checks, which are unlikely to gain Republican support.

Another bill she introduced would make it a crime to allow a child access to a gun, including failing to safely secure it or leaving it out somewhere — a proposal also made by Sen. Elena Parent, an Atlanta Democrat. It also requires businesses to put up signs about those regulations. That bill has one Republican co-sponsor, Rep. Sharon Cooper of Marietta. The 14-year-old arrested in the Apalachee shooting, Colt Gray, allegedly got the semiautomatic assault rifle used in the attack from his father. Father and son are both facing murder charges.

Parent also has proposed barring anyone convicted of family violence from having guns. She also introduced a bill that would require a hearing process if someone who had been involuntarily hospitalized wants to get their records wiped. Right now, Georgia’s crime information center wipes that information five years after hospitalization.

Decatur Democrat Sen. Emanuel Jones introduced a bill to create an emergency alert system and database for threats. Schools would have to provide mental health services for students who make threats. He also proposed a statewide program to share information about gun safety.

On Monday, the father of the slain teacher Aspinwall’ stood behind Burns at the capitol to support his proposals. The plan calls for greater information sharing by schools and police about reported threats as well as students with disciplinary or mental health records at risk of committing violence. The proposal also calls for new ways to connect students with counseling.

The governor last month proposed giving public schools an additional $50 million for school safety, but it did not include money for school counselors and mental health counseling that officials have requested.

___

Kramon is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Kramon on X: @charlottekramon.

Charlotte Kramon, The Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) — Outraged Democrats are testing the limits of their diminished power as they try to stop the stunning power grabs of President Donald Trump and his chief lieutenant, Elon Musk.

Musk’s maneuvers, which include the hostile seizure of taxpayer data and the apparent closure of the government’s leading international humanitarian aid agency, have energized many Democrats, who have been mired in a post-election funk and struggled to identify a cohesive strategy in the earliest days of Trump’s presidency.

Democratic members of Congress threatened to try to bring Trump’s agenda, including his Cabinet nominations, to a grinding halt. Operatives assembled a new war room in their party headquarters. And average Americans, backed by a sudden influx of elected officials, warned of a looming constitutional crisis at ballooning protests across the nation’s capital.

“With one voice, we can push back and resist the excesses and extremes of the Trump administration,” newly elected Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said in an interview. “Only two weeks in, Elon Musk is already our worst president ever.”

It’s unclear, however, if such attempts at obstruction would realistically stop Trump and Musk.

Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress, while the Supreme Court is led by a 6-3 conservative majority. And Republicans who control Congress, so far at least, have cheered Trump and Musk’s provocative moves.

Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday shared one of the billionaire’s social media posts in which he claimed to have discovered roughly $700 billion in government fraud.

“When Elon and the team started I was very supportive but thought the waste and fraud would top out at $250 billion,” Vance wrote. “The real number will end up much higher.”

Musk, the world’s wealthiest person, oversees a team of people at the Department of Government Efficiency in Washington. With Trump’s blessing, the billionaire CEO is moving to fire or sideline career government officials, gain access to sensitive databases and dismantle agencies he disfavors.

On Monday, some of Musk’s agents were spotted at the Department of Education, which Trump has vowed to abolish. And on Tuesday, Musk called for National Public Radio to be stripped of federal funding.

None of it is happening with congressional approval, inviting a constitutional clash over the limits of presidential authority.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, a rising star in her party, said no elected Democrat should help Republicans govern in the GOP-controlled House, even if that leads to a government shutdown.

“I don’t know that there’s anything in modern day history that comes close to the moment we’re in,” Crockett said. “As we typically say in the Black community, the hoods are off.”

In the Senate, some Democrats said they would break personal tradition and oppose all of Trump’s remaining Cabinet nominees.

“I plan to oppose every cabinet level nominee that is considered on the Senate floor going forward,” said Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del. “The administration has carried out unlawful budget freezes, massive civil servant layoffs and unconstitutional firings, directed federal funding specifically to places with ‘higher birthrates,’ allowed an unelected and unchecked billionaire to determine what our tax dollars are worthy of funding, and more.”

“This is unacceptable and dangerous,” Blunt Rochester added.

The growing outcry from Democrats extends well beyond Washington, where some rank-and-file Democrats are upset that their representatives in Congress are not doing enough.

Ezra Levin, who leads the Democratic activist group Indivisible, said that 50,000 people joined a call on Sunday to pressure senators to take a tougher stand against Musk. He was pleased that Democrats in Washington seem to have rallied since last week’s unilateral grant freeze, but he contends that the party can take more steps, especially in the Senate.

“We don’t even have them issuing ongoing opposition to Trump’s nominees while a coup is happening,” Levin said on Tuesday, noting 22 Senate Democrats voted to confirm Trump’s nominee for secretary of veterans affairs, Doug Collins. “This isn’t about any individual program, this is about whether we have a constitution.”

Democrats have few options.

Philip Joyce, a public policy professor at the University of Maryland, noted that the Trump administration has been more than willing to work around Congress during its latest round of executive actions.

“Since the administration doesn’t seem concerned with doing things that have been viewed as illegal or unconstitutional in the past, I can’t see any other option other than taking the administration to court,” Joyce said.

Indeed, Democrats at this point hope the courts will provide the checks and balances that Trump’s Republican allies in Washington will not.

Democratic state attorneys general and nonprofit groups successfully filed lawsuits last week that led to separate court orders halting Trump-ordered funding freezes that triggered panic among nonprofit organizations, including hospitals and social welfare groups. On Monday, federal worker unions sued to block Musk and his staff from accessing the Treasury payments system. Multiple groups have also sued to prevent Trump from stripping civil service protections from a swathe of federal workers.

At the same time, Democrats and their allies are increasingly concerned that Trump may ignore court orders altogether. Already, the term-limited president is bypassing laws that establish federal funding levels and worker protections.

Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, told the AP that his union is already preparing for Trump to ignore a court order.

“We won’t give up. We’ll keep fighting until justice prevails,” he said.

In one apparent silver lining, Kelly noted that Trump has been good for union participation in recent weeks. The American Federation of Government Employees expanded its ranks by 8,693 members in January and another 3,000 people have joined so far in January, he said.

Government workers were among the hundreds who protested outside federal offices on Tuesday. And more than a dozen members of Congress were on the speaking program of a late-afternoon rally outside the Treasury building, where Musk’s team last week gained access to the U.S. Treasury payment system.

The system is responsible for 1 billion payments per year totaling $5 trillion and includes sensitive information involving bank accounts and Social Security payments.

Protesters outside the Office of Personnel Management on Tuesday targeted Musk almost more than Trump.

“Elon, Elon, stop the coup! Nobody elected you!” they chanted, as some waved signs that read, “Musk must go. Get out! Now.”

“It’s one thing to downsize the government. It’s one thing to try to obliterate it,” said Dan Smith, a Maryland resident whose father was a farmer, a USDA research scientist, and “one of the hardest working federal employees I knew.”

He called the Trump administration’s moves “frightening and disgusting.”

“My only hope is that they’re going to push too far, and there’s going to be a response and a retaliation — and we’re going to come out this thing with more and stronger belief in democracy,” Smith said.

___

Peoples reported from New York. AP writer Chris Megerian contributed.

Steve Peoples And Nicholas Riccardi, The Associated Press


MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A new television attack ad in Wisconsin’s hotly contested Supreme Court race features a doctored image of the liberal candidate, a move that her campaign claims could be a violation of a recently enacted state law.

The image in question is of Susan Crawford, a Dane County circuit court judge. It appeared in a new TV ad paid for by the campaign of her opponent Brad Schimel, a Waukesha County circuit court judge.

The winner of the high-stakes race on April 1 will determine whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court remains under a liberal majority or flips to conservative control.

The Schimel campaign ad begins and ends with a black-and-white image of Crawford with her lips closed together. A nearly identical color image from her 2018 run for Dane County Circuit Court shows Crawford with a wide smile on her face.

Crawford’s campaign accused Schimel of manipulating the image, potentially in violation of a state law enacted last year. The law, passed with bipartisan support in the Legislature and signed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, requires disclosure if political ads use audio or video content created by generative artificial intelligence. Failure to disclose the use of AI as required can result in a $1,000 fine.

“Schimel will try to manipulate images and the facts because he’s desperate to hide his own record of failure,” Crawford spokesperson Derrick Honeyman said in a statement.

Schimel’s campaign spokesperson Jacob Fischer said the image was “edited” but not created by AI.

Peter Loge, the director of the Project on Ethics in Political Communication at George Washington University, said images should never be changed to give a false impression.

“That said, as these things go, it’s not that egregious,” Loge said of the Schimel ad.

He pointed to numerous other examples of images being doctored for use in political ads, including one in 2015 by a political action committee supporting Wisconsin Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson. The image showed then-President Barack Obama smiling and shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. In 2020, U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar, a Republican from Arizona, posted the fake image again on social media.

Obama and Rouhani never met. The image was fake.

A doctored image was also used last year in a television ad in the Indiana governor’s race.

“A good rule of thumb is to take everything with a grain of salt,” Loge said. “Just because you see it on television or on the internet doesn’t mean it’s true.”

The Schimel ad attacks Crawford over the release of a convicted rapist in 2011 because the state’s office of criminal appeals missed the deadline to appeal to the state Supreme Court. Crawford headed the division at the time, but the error miscalculating the appeal deadline was made by another attorney in the office and by two secretaries, according to a report by the attorney general.

“Crawford didn’t bother filing the appeal in time, letting the rapist walk free,” the Schimel ad claims.

After that error was discovered, Crawford ordered a review of every pending appeal’s deadline and personally calculated the deadline for petitions for review to the state Supreme Court. Republican officeholders at the time who investigated what happened, including then-state Rep. Scott Walker, said the error was an isolated incident.

Schimel served one term as attorney general between 2015 and 2019 when Walker was governor. Walker appointed Schimel as a judge the day after Schimel lost reelection in 2018.

Scott Bauer, The Associated Press


OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Elon Musk’s lawyers faced off with OpenAI in court Tuesday as a federal judge weighed the billionaire’s request for a court order that would block the ChatGPT maker from converting itself to a for-profit company.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said it was a “stretch” for Musk to claim he will be irreparably harmed if she doesn’t intervene to stop OpenAI from moving forward with its transition from a nonprofit research laboratory to a for-profit corporation.

But the judge also raised concerns about OpenAI and its relationship with business partner Microsoft and said she wouldn’t stop the case from moving to trial as soon as next year so a jury can decide.

“It is plausible that what Mr. Musk is saying is true. We’ll find out. He’ll sit on the stand,” she said.

Musk, an early OpenAI investor and board member, sued the artificial intelligence company last year, first in a California state court and later in federal court, alleging it had betrayed its founding aims as a nonprofit research lab benefiting the public good. Musk had invested about $45 million in the startup from its founding until 2018, his lawyer said Tuesday.

Musk escalated the legal dispute late last year, adding new claims and defendants and asking for a court order that would stop OpenAI’s plans to convert itself into a for-profit business more fully. Musk also added his own AI company, xAI, as a plaintiff.

Also targeted by Musk’s lawsuit is OpenAI’s close business partner Microsoft and tech entrepreneur Reid Hoffman, a former OpenAI board member who also sits on Microsoft’s board.

Gonzalez Rogers said she has a high bar for approving the kind of preliminary injunction that Musk wants but hasn’t yet ruled on the request.

She has handled a number of tech industry cases including Apple’s fight with Epic Games, though she said Tuesday that Musk’s case is “nothing like” that one. Then-President Barack Obama appointed her to the federal bench in 2011.

Tuesday’s hearing was originally set for January but was postponed after Musk’s attorney Marc Toberoff said his house was destroyed in the Pacific Palisades wildfire.

Musk, who did not attend the hearing, has alleged in the lawsuit that the companies are violating the terms of his foundational contributions to the charity.

OpenAI has said Musk’s requested court order would “debilitate OpenAI’s business” and mission to the advantage of Musk and his own AI company and is based on “far-fetched” legal claims.

At the heart of the dispute is a 2017 internal power struggle at the fledgling startup that led to Altman becoming OpenAI’s CEO.

Emails disclosed by OpenAI show Musk had also sought to be CEO and grew frustrated after two other OpenAI co-founders said he would hold too much power as a major shareholder and chief executive if the startup succeeded in its goal to achieve better-than-human AI known as artificial general intelligence, or AGI. Musk has long voiced concerns about how advanced forms of AI could threaten humanity.

Altman eventually succeeded in becoming CEO and has remained so except for a period in 2023 when he was fired and then reinstated days later after the board that ousted him was replaced.

OpenAI has sought to demonstrate Musk’s early support for the idea of making OpenAI a for-profit business so it could raise money for the hardware and computer power that AI needs.

Musk is not the only one challenging OpenAI’s for-profit transition. Facebook and Instagram parent Meta Platforms has asked California’s attorney general to block it, and the office of Delaware’s attorney general has said it is reviewing the conversion.

———————

O’Brien reported from Providence, Rhode Island.

——————-

The Associated Press and OpenAI have a licensing and technology agreement that allows OpenAI access to part of AP’s text archives.

Barbara Ortutay And Matt O’brien, The Associated Press


QUÉBEC — Quebec Premier François Legault says talks should begin as soon as possible on renegotiating the North American free-trade agreement.

Legault made the comments today in a special statement to the legislature, a day after United States Donald Trump paused for 30 days the implementation of 25 per cent tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods and services.

He says the uncertainty that is being created by constant threats of U.S. tariffs is like injecting “poison” into the economy.

If Trump is unhappy with the North American free-trade agreement, then Legault says the U.S., Canada and Mexico should begin talks immediately instead of waiting for a scheduled review in 2026.

Legault says that in light of Trump’s tariff plans — what the premier says is a “brutal economic attack” — the province must diversify its economy and make it less dependent on the U.S.

The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, signed in 2018 and entered into force in 2020, governs trade across the continent and replaces the original deal that went into effect in 1994.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 4, 2025.

The Canadian Press


OTTAWA — A lawyer for the federal government says a judge mistakenly concluded it was unreasonable for the government to use the Emergencies Act in 2022 to quell protests in the national capital and at key border points.

In his January 2024 ruling, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley said he revisited the events with the benefit of a more extensive record of the facts and the law than the government had when it proclaimed a public order emergency.

Lawyer Michael Feder, representing the government, told the Federal Court of Appeal today it was unfair of the judge to fault federal decision-making using “20/20 hindsight.”

In early February 2022, downtown Ottawa was filled with protesters, many in large trucks that rolled into the city beginning in late January.

While many demonstrated against COVID-19 health restrictions, the gathering attracted people with a variety of grievances against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberal government.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and several other groups and individuals argued in Federal Court that Ottawa ushered in the emergency measures without sound statutory grounds.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 4, 2025.

Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press


WASHINGTON (AP) — FBI agents who participated in investigations related to President Donald Trump have sued over Justice Department efforts to develop a list of employees involved in those inquiries that they fear could be a precursor to mass firings.

Two lawsuits, filed Tuesday in federal court in Washington on behalf of anonymous agents, demand an immediate halt to the collection and potential dissemination of names of investigators who participated in probes of the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol as well as Trump’s hoarding of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

The suits mark an escalation in a high-stake dispute that burst into public view on Friday with revelations that the Justice Department had demanded from the FBI the names, offices and titles of all employees involved in Jan. 6 investigations so that officials could evaluate whether any personnel action was merited. Thousands of FBI employees were also asked over the weekend to fill out an in-depth questionnaire about their participation in those probes, a step they worry could lead to termination.

Responding to the Justice Department’s request, the FBI turned over personnel details about roughly 5,000 employees but identified them only through their unique identifier code rather than by name, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the matter and internal communications seen by The Associated Press.

The scrutiny of career agents is highly unusual given that rank-and-file FBI agents do not select the cases they are assigned to work on, do not historically switch positions or receive any sort of discipline because of their participation in matters seen as politically sensitive cases and especially because there’s been no evidence any FBI agents or lawyers who investigated or prosecuted the cases engaged in misconduct.

But Trump, dating back to his first term as president, has long been furious at the FBI and Justice Department and sought to bend federal law enforcement to his will.

He was investigated as president by agents examining potential ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia, and then after the leaving the White House, faced new criminal inquiries into his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his retention of top-secret documents. His efforts to overturn election results and his retention of those documents both resulted in indictments that were dismissed after he won the presidency in November.

The agents who brought Tuesday’s two lawsuits are not identified by name and are instead referred to as anonymous “John and Jane Does.” They say they were told on Sunday to either fill out surveys about their involvement in the Jan. 6 or Mar-a-Lago investigation or that their supervisors would do it for them and that their responses would be “forwarded to upper management,” says one of the lawsuits, filed on behalf of nine agents.

“Plaintiffs assert that the purpose for this list is to identify agents to be terminated or to suffer other adverse employment action. Plaintiffs reasonably fear that all or parts of this list might be published by allies of President Trump, thus placing themselves and their families in immediate danger of retribution by the now pardoned and at-large Jan. 6 convicted felons,” the complaint said.

The lawsuit notes that Trump on the campaign trail “repeatedly stated that he would personify ‘the vengeance’ or ‘the retribution,’ for those whom he called ‘political hostages,’ for their actions during the Jan. 6 attack.”

The agents contend “the very act of compiling lists of persons who worked on matters that upset Donald Trump is retaliatory in nature, intended to intimidate FBI agents and other personnel and to discourage them from reporting any future malfeasance and by Donald Trump and his agents.”

The complaint also cites the Justice Department’s firing last week of prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith’s team as proof that the effort to compile the list is rooted in a desire for retribution.

“Donald Trump has made repeated public pronouncements of his intent to exact revenge upon persons he perceives to be disloyal to him by simply executing their duties in investigating acts incited by him and persons loyal to him,” the complaint says. “Whatever the Trump administration believes about Plaintiffs’ political affiliation, it clearly believes that persons who were involved in the investigation and prosecution of Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases are insufficiently politically affiliated with Donald Trump to be entitled to retain their employment.”

Another group of agents argued in a second lawsuit Tuesday that releasing their names publicly would subject them to dangerous threats and harassment. The complaint includes a screenshot of a social media post from the former Proud Boys national leader Enrique Tarrio calling for the arrest of an agent who testified in his Jan. 6 case after his recent pardon from Trump.

“It is clear that the threatened disclosure is a prelude to an unlawful purge of the FBI solely driven by the Trump Administration’s vengeful and political motivations,” Chris Mattei, one of the lawyers who filed that lawsuit on behalf of the FBI Agents Association, said in a statement. “Releasing the names of these agents would ignite a firestorm of harassment towards them and their families and it must be stopped immediately.”

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

Eric Tucker And Alanna Durkin Richer, The Associated Press


OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Elon Musk’s lawyers faced off with OpenAI in court Tuesday as a federal judge weighed the billionaire’s request for a court order that would block the ChatGPT maker from converting itself to a for-profit company.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said it was a “stretch” for Musk to claim he will be irreparably harmed if she doesn’t intervene to stop OpenAI from moving forward with its transition from a nonprofit research laboratory to a for-profit corporation.

But the judge also raised concerns about OpenAI and its relationship with business partner Microsoft and said she wouldn’t stop the case from moving to trial as soon as next year so a jury can decide.

“It is plausible that what Mr. Musk is saying is true. We’ll find out. He’ll sit on the stand,” she said.

Musk, an early OpenAI investor and board member, sued the artificial intelligence company last year, first in a California state court and later in federal court, alleging it had betrayed its founding aims as a nonprofit research lab benefiting the public good. Musk had invested about $45 million in the startup from its founding until 2018, his lawyer said Tuesday.

Musk escalated the legal dispute late last year, adding new claims and defendants and asking for a court order that would stop OpenAI’s plans to convert itself into a for-profit business more fully. Musk also added his own AI company, xAI, as a plaintiff.

Also targeted by Musk’s lawsuit is OpenAI’s close business partner Microsoft and tech entrepreneur Reid Hoffman, a former OpenAI board member who also sits on Microsoft’s board.

Gonzalez Rogers said she has a high bar for approving the kind of preliminary injunction that Musk wants but hasn’t yet ruled on the request.

She has handled a number of tech industry cases including Apple’s fight with Epic Games, though she said Tuesday that Musk’s case is “nothing like” that one. Then-President Barack Obama appointed her to the federal bench in 2011.

Tuesday’s hearing was originally set for January but was postponed after Musk’s attorney Marc Toberoff said his house was destroyed in the Pacific Palisades wildfire.

Musk, who did not attend the hearing, has alleged in the lawsuit that the companies are violating the terms of his foundational contributions to the charity.

OpenAI has said Musk’s requested court order would “debilitate OpenAI’s business” and mission to the advantage of Musk and his own AI company and is based on “far-fetched” legal claims.

At the heart of the dispute is a 2017 internal power struggle at the fledgling startup that led to Altman becoming OpenAI’s CEO.

He had also sought to be CEO and grew frustrated after two other OpenAI co-founders said he would hold too much power as a major shareholder and chief executive if the startup succeeded in its goal to achieve better-than-human AI known as artificial general intelligence, or AGI. Musk has long voiced concerns about how advanced forms of AI could threaten humanity.

Altman eventually succeeded in becoming CEO and has remained so except for a period in 2023 when he was fired and then reinstated days later after the board that ousted him was replaced.

OpenAI has sought to demonstrate Musk’s early support for the idea of making OpenAI a for-profit business so it could raise money for the hardware and computer power that AI needs.

Musk is not the only one challenging OpenAI’s for-profit transition. Facebook and Instagram parent Meta Platforms has asked California’s attorney general to block it, and the office of Delaware’s attorney general has said it is reviewing the conversion.

———————

O’Brien reported from Providence, Rhode Island.

——————-

The Associated Press and OpenAI have a licensing and technology agreement that allows OpenAI access to part of AP’s text archives.

Barbara Ortutay And Matt O’brien, The Associated Press