Trump Plans to Permanently Shut Historic Site for Political Protests

President Donald Trump is taking extraordinary efforts to keep protesters out of his eyeline.

Trump officials will present plans Thursday to install permanent fencing around Lafayette Square Park in Washington D.C., a historic gathering place for protesters, four people told The Washington Post.

The move comes more than eight months after Lafayette Square was originally closed on January 19 for a “major rehabilitation,” set to reopen on May 31. That deadline came and went, but the fences stayed up. Now the Trump White House is hoping to make the fences surrounding the park permanent.

The project has been a longtime priority for the Secret Service that will finally be made a reality at the expense of the public. Trump officials will also present plans for a $180 million visitor-screening facility.

Permanent changes to transform the White House complex into an impenetrable fortress would radically reshape the institution’s already rocky relationship with the surrounding city Trump’s been using as a personal playground all summer. The move serves as a startling distillation of the ever-widening gap between the Trump administration and the people it purports to represent.

The National Parks Service announced Tuesday that in addition to Lafayette Square Park, Sherman Park, the First Division Monument, and the Ellipse would also remain restricted areas through September 22.

“Lesser restrictive measures will not suffice due to the Secret Service’s security-based assessment based on its assessment of sensitive intelligence that these park areas need to be kept clear,” the agency said in a statement.

The pedestrianized stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, which has served as a viewing spot for tourists and a gathering place for protesters for two decades, would also remain closed. Earlier this summer, the area was transformed into a parking lot for Trump’s various celebratory events. Later, the Secret Service decided to install permanent fencing, allowing it to close pedestrian access if it deems there are security risks.

The recent efforts to fortify the White House come amid heightened security threats resulting from Trump’s optional war against Iran.

Maybe we could actually believe that this was purely a precautionary measure if Trump wasn’t obsessed with making sweeping, unilateral changes to the White House grounds. Not to mention his rampant authoritarianism that has led to the useless militarization of Washington, D.C. It seems clear that the president, who regularly lashes out against critics, isn’t interested in getting any more angry feedback from the American people.

Walmart has pulled a Nazi costume from its inventory after facing a typhoon of public blowback.

The outfit was made by Orion Costumes and marketed as a “German Army Soldier Adult Costume” that included a jacket, trousers, attached boots, a belt, and a hat. The outfit was also sold by other major retailers, including Amazon and Target.

Walmart initially sold the fit as a “vintage-themed” costume inspired by 1940s military gear, but its source material was obvious: One advert of the high-collared grey garb photoshopped the model in front of a German flag.

By Thursday morning, the costume had been stripped from all three companies’ respective websites without explanation.

The New Republic reached out to Walmart, Target, and Amazon asking why the item had been removed, as well as why the item was listed in the first place. The companies did not respond to the request by the time of publication.

It’s not the only egregious inventory decision made in the run-up to the Halloween season. Last month, Target faced another round of backlash for selling what customers described as a racist caricature inspired by Jim Crow–era minstrels. The marketing images for the outfit featured a Black child model, further incensing critics who argued the company was perpetrating wildly harmful symbols that were historically used to justify racial discrimination and violence.

Target issued an apology after pulling the costume from its shelves, claiming that they were “deeply sorry” that they “got this wrong.”

“We know this is especially hurtful for our Black guests, team members and partners,” the statement read. “Removing the costume is an important first step, and the company is looking closely at how this happened and what needs to change to ensure this won’t happen again.”

A U.S. military widow whose husband was killed in the Iran war claims that she is being denied death benefits.

Libby Klinner, the widow of U.S. Air Force Major John “Alex” Klinner, who died in a crash in Iraq in March, said on Instagram Sunday that she had not received certain military benefits as a surviving spouse.

“The Air Force recently told me that because we haven’t officially declared war, my kids and I aren’t eligible for some benefits,” Klinner wrote. “So, not only was my husband killed in a war he never wanted to participate in, but now the benefits we’re left with are being dictated by semantics and public perception.”

In a follow-up post Tuesday, Klinner said that the Air Force’s director of mortuary affairs had contacted her after the initial post to audit her benefits. She has not posted any updates about her benefits since.

The Air Force has reached out to Klinner, a spokesperson told the Daily Express, in order “to ensure she is receiving all eligible benefits she and her family are entitled to, as well as ensure all her questions are fully addressed.”

“We understand this matter has been difficult for Mrs. Klinner and her family, and we are committed to addressing her concerns with care and respect,” the spokesperson said. “We remain committed to providing clear information and continued support to Mrs. Klinner, as well as all the families of the Airmen who died in the KC-135 crash.”

Klinner’s husband is one of 18 U.S. service members who have been killed during the war with Iran. Another 757 people have been wounded, according to the Department of Defense. President Trump has mishandled the war, seemingly operating without a plan, and has stopped and restarted hostilities in order to make the dubious legal claim that the conflict hasn’t been one unceasing war but several small ones, in an effort to avoid accountability. If Klinner’s claim is true, it seems that this legal sleight of hand may also be to deny military benefits.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent has been charged by federal prosecutors with lying about the shooting of a Venezuelan man in Minnesota earlier this year.

The Associated Press, citing an unnamed source, reports that officer Christian Castro, who allegedly shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg during January’s Minneapolis crackdown, has been charged with making false statements to federal investigators.

The federal charges come after Castro was released from a Texas jail last week thanks to Republican Governor Greg Abbot’s refusal to sign an extradition order to Minnesota, where Castro faced separate charges of assault and false reporting related to the shooting.

The government tried to claim Sosa-Celis beat an officer with a broom handle and snow shovel but was forced to drop its charges against him after video evidence debunked its case. ProPublica reported earlier this week that the Department of Justice blocked federal prosecutors from bringing more serious civil rights charges, like those brought against the officers who killed George Floyd, against Castro.

The Associated Press reports that no final decision has been made regarding whether further charges will be brought against Castro. It’s a surprising move from the DOJ, considering how much the Trump administration has sought to protect ICE agents from prosecution. The DOJ still has not charged anyone over the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, two Minnesotans who were shot and killed by ICE agents as part of “Operation Metro Surge.”

In those cases, it may all be up to Minnesota authorities, who have received evidence from both killings from the federal government. But Minnesota may run into resistance, much like it did in its attempt to prosecute Castro. For now, though, Castro may soon have to go to federal court.

On Thursday, 33 Democrats joined Republicans to pass a law that would take federal funding away from academic institutions involved in any kind of boycott of or divestment from Israel. The legislation passed 237–169.

The Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act, headed by Republican Representative Virginia Foxx and Democratic Representative Josh Gottheimer, strips federal funding from any school that carries out a “nonexpressive commercial boycott” of Israel—like “refusals to deal” with it on a business level. Notably, the bill also applies to boycotts of institutions based in Israeli settlements.

“Thank you @RepJoshG and @virginiafoxx for leading this important bipartisan effort to counter the dangerous BDS [or Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions] campaign and safeguard academic engagement with Israel,” the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, celebrated on X after the vote. “This legislation helps protect pro-Israel students from discriminatory boycotts and efforts to deny them the ability to study in Israel or learn from Israeli professors, while fully protecting First Amendment rights.”

This is a boldfaced attempt to make not just political capitulation but financial capitulation to Israel a requirement for federal funding. Eighty percent of Democratic voters and Democratic-leaning independents have a negative view of Israel, as it continues to bomb Gaza and Lebanon and Israeli settlers terrorize Palestinians in the West Bank.

The bill has many detractors, even in the Democratic Party.

“The bill’s federal requirements raise serious questions about how they would operate in practice, the potential negative effects on institutions, and the extent to which the federal government may condition funding on policies that implicate First Amendment-protected speech,” the House Education and Workforce Committee Democrats wrote in a statement before the vote.

“No matter how strongly I oppose the BDS movement, I also believe that those who engage in BDS have a First Amendment right to do so. The First Amendment right to free speech does not apply only to agreeable speech,” Democratic Representative Jerry Nadler, Congress’s most senior Jewish member, wrote. “No matter how much I may disagree with BDS, and find it strategically stupid and morally repugnant, I will always fight to protect Americans’ right to speech with which I disagree. It is the only way to ensure speech I do agree with is equally protected.”

The bill now heads to the Senate to be voted on when it returns from Labor Day break on September 14.

Here is every Democrat who voted to take funding away from universities that boycott Israel:

Jake Auchincloss (Massachusetts)
Kathy Castor (Florida)
Gilbert Ray Cisneros Jr. (California)
Jim Costa (California)
Joe Courtney (Connecticut)
Henry Cuellar (Texas)
Donald G. Davis (North Carolina)
Lois Frankel (Florida)
Laura Gillen (New York)
Jared F. Golden (Maine)
Vicente Gonzalez (Texas)
Greg Landsman (Ohio)
George Latimer (New York)
Susie Lee (Nevada)
John W. Mannion (New York)
Jared Moskowitz (Florida)
Donald Norcross (New Jersey)
Jimmy Panetta (California)
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Washington)
Josh Riley (New York)
Bradley Scott Schneider (Illinois)
Hillary J. Scholten (Michigan)
Kim Schrier (Washington)
Brad Sherman (California)
Darren Soto (Florida)
Haley M. Stevens (Michigan)
Thomas R. Suozzi (New York)
Shri Thanedar (Michigan)
Dina Titus (Nevada)
Ritchie Torres (New York)
Juan Vargas (California)
Eugene Simon Vindman (Virginia)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)