By MARK VANCLEAVE and STEVE KARNOWSKI

The shooter who killed two schoolchildren and injured 21 other people at a Catholic church in Minneapolis was caught on video visiting a suburban gun shop the weekend before the attack, but the owner of the store said Thursday that his staff saw no warning signs in his conduct.

The video shows that Robin Westman spent around 40 minutes at Frontiersman Sports in St. Louis Park on Aug. 23. Westman examined several guns and ultimately bought a revolver, owner Kory Krause told The Associated Press. Westman had already passed the required background checks and had a valid permit to purchase the gun, he said.

But the revolver wasn’t one of the guns Westman used in the shootings at the Church of the Annunciation on Aug. 27, when it was full of students from the affiliated Annunciation Catholic School who had gathered for their first Mass of the academic year. Investigators recovered a semiautomatic assault-style rifle, a shotgun and a different handgun at the scene, and said Westman was legally entitled to buy them. Krause said none came from his store.

Westman, 23, attended the school for eighth grade and Westman’s mother formerly worked for the parish, but investigators are still trying to determine a motive. Westman died by suicide after firing 116 rifle rounds through the church’s stained-glass windows.

As first reported by KSTP-TV, the security video shows Westman handling several firearms and talking with employees and other customers. Krause wasn’t in the store at the time, but he said he promptly shared the video with investigators and is cooperating with them.

Krause stressed that nothing in Westman’s conduct raised any concerns among his staffers, who he said are trained to watch for warning signs.

“This person said all the right things, they checked all the right boxes, asked all the questions, they were friendly, talkative, making jokes, laughing, knowledgeable about guns, handled a lot of guns that were not the type of guns you would think are of the interest of somebody looking to do a mass shooting,” Krause told AP.

Krause said his employees have extensive experience in picking out bad actors, straw purchasers, people who are homicidal, suicidal, mentally unstable or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. But he said nothing stood out with Westman.

“We’re still going over it,” Krause said. “We’re still scratching our heads thinking, ‘What did we miss? What could we have done?’ But it always ends with the answer of ‘nothing.’ There was just nothing there. And that’s what makes this situation so unique.”

Democratic Gov. Tim Walz said Tuesday he intends to call a special session of the Minnesota Legislature to address gun and school safety, and he suggested that an assault weapons ban would be on his list of proposals, which he is still developing. But it would be very difficult for anything to pass the closely divided Legislature without at least some bipartisan support.

House Republicans on Thursday released a list of proposals that lack any restrictions on access to firearms. It calls for increased funding for school security and for school resources officers, including for private schools. They would also prohibit districts from banning school resource officers, as Minneapolis and some other districts have done. The House GOP also called for more mental health treatment beds, and mandatory minimum prison sentences for repeat criminals who use guns and for straw purchasers of firearms that are used in violent crimes.

Students Demand Action, an arm of Everytown for Gun Safety, is organizing school walkouts across the country for Friday to demand that state and federal lawmakers ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

___

Associated Press writer Steve Karnowski reported from Minneapolis.

Related Articles

Man charged with threatening MN Lt. Gov. Flanagan after Minneapolis church shooting

Vance moved by meeting with Annunciation families; one urges him to act on gun violence

MN Capitol rally calls on lawmakers to ban assault rifles

What motivated the Annunciation shooter? We may never know

Putting ‘paws on the ground,’ comfort dogs help heal at Annunciation Church

By SUDHIN THANAWALA, Associated Press

The Trump administration must release billions of dollars in foreign aid approved by Congress, including money that President Donald Trump said last week he would not spend, a federal judge has ordered.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington ruled Wednesday that the Republican administration’s decision to withhold the funding was likely illegal. He issued a preliminary injunction ordering the release of $11.5 billion that is set to expire at the end of the month.

“To be clear, no one disputes that Defendants have significant discretion in how to spend the funds at issue, and the Court is not directing Defendants to make payments to any particular recipients,” wrote Ali, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden. “But Defendants do not have any discretion as to whether to spend the funds.”

Messages to the White House and State Department were not immediately returned. The administration filed a notice of appeal on Thursday.

Trump told House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., in a letter on Aug. 28 that he would not spend $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, effectively cutting the budget without going through the legislative branch.

He used what’s known as a pocket rescission. That is when a president submits a request to Congress toward the end of a current budget year to not spend the approved money. The late notice means Congress cannot act on the request in the required 45-day window and the money goes unspent. It’s the first time in nearly 50 years that a president has used the tactic. The fiscal year draws to a close at the end of September.

Ali said Congress would have to approve the rescission proposal for the administration to withhold the money.

The law is “explicit that it is congressional action—not the President’s transmission of a special message—that triggers rescission of the earlier appropriations,” he wrote.

Related Articles

States and developer sue the Trump administration for halting work on New England offshore wind farm

New York attorney general asks court to reinstate President Trump’s massive civil fraud penalty

Justice Department probes mortgage fraud claims against Lisa Cook of Federal Reserve, AP source says

Social Security praises its new chatbot. Ex-officials say it was tested but shelved under Biden

Where states stand in the battle for partisan advantage in US House redistricting maps

The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the funding as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals, and in January, he issued an executive order directing the State Department and USAID to freeze spending on foreign aid.

Nonprofit organizations that sued the government have said the funding freeze breaks federal law and has shut down funding for even the most urgent lifesaving programs abroad.

A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled last month that the administration could suspend the money. The judges later revised that opinion, reviving the lawsuit before Ali.

In his ruling, Ali said he understood that his decision would not be the final word in the case, adding that “definitive higher court guidance now will be instructive.”

“This case raises questions of immense legal and practical importance, including whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds,” he wrote.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal jury has ordered Google to pay $425.7 million for improperly snooping on people’s smartphones during a nearly decade-long period of intrusions.

The verdict reached Wednesday in San Francisco federal court followed a more than two-week trial in a class-action case covering about 98 million smartphones operating in the United States between July 1, 2016, through Sept. 23, 2024. That means the total damages awarded in the five-year-old case works out to about $4 per device.

Google had denied that it was improperly tracking the online activity of people who thought they had shielded themselves with privacy controls. The company maintained its stance even though the eight-person jury concluded Google had been spying in violation of California privacy laws.

“This decision misunderstands how our products work, and we will appeal it,” Google spokesman Jose Castaneda said Thursday. “Our privacy tools give people control over their data, and when they turn off personalization, we honor that choice.”

Related Articles

DOJ calls Lisa Cook’s claim that Trump seeks her ouster to control Fed ‘baseless’

Average rate on a 30-year mortgage drops to 6.5%, lowest level since last October

Murder suspect Luigi Mangione spotted as model on Shein website

Americans would save $100B if credit card rates were capped as Trump proposed, researchers say

If Trump’s biggest tariffs get thrown out, companies could get a refund — but not consumers

The lawyers who filed the case had argued Google had used the data they collected off smartphones without users’ permission to help sell ads tailored to users’ individual interests — a strategy that resulted in the company reaping billions in additional revenue. The lawyers framed those ad sales as illegal profiteering that merited damages of more than $30 billion.

Even though the jury came up with a far lower calculation for the damages, one of the lawyers who brought the case against Google hailed the outcome as a victory for privacy protection.

“We hope this result sends a message to the tech industry that Americans will not sit idly by as their information is collected and monetized against their will,” said attorney John Yanchunis of law firm Morgan & Morgan.

The San Francisco jury verdict came a day after Google avoided the U.S. Department of Justice’s attempt to break up the company in a landmark antitrust case in Washington, D.C., targeting its dominant search engine. A federal judge who had declared Google’s search engine to be an illegal monopoly ordered less radical changes, including requiring the company to share some of its search data with rivals.

“As the city races to retrofit its building stock and meet carbon reduction goals, Passive House offers a solution that’s not just idealistic—it’s practical and proven.”

The courtyard at 326 Rockaway Ave. in Brownsville, an all-electric Passive House development by Slate Property Group, RiseBoro Community Partnership, and Goldman Sachs. Photo by Barrett Doherty, courtesy of OSD (Office of Strategy + Design)

As New York City works to meet its ambitious climate goals, reduce carbon emissions, and create healthier, more affordable housing, one proven building standard continues to stand out: Passive House. Known for its ultra-energy-efficient performance, superior indoor air quality, and long-term cost savings, Passive House design is rapidly gaining traction—but it’s still not the norm. The question is: why not? 

RELATED READING: ‘Passive House’ Buildings Boast Climate & Health Perks. Why Aren’t There More of Them?

In a city where over 70 percent of carbon emissions come from buildings, Passive House construction presents one of the most practical, impactful tools available for transformation. It’s time for developers, policymakers, and building owners to take a closer look at what’s stopping widespread adoption—and why those perceived barriers no longer hold up to scrutiny. 

Passive House is a rigorous, performance-based building standard that dramatically reduces the energy required for heating and cooling. Passive House buildings consume up to 90 percent less heating and cooling energy than traditional buildings and 40 to 60 percent less total energy.

This is achieved through five key design principles: continuous insulation, airtight construction, high-performance windows and doors, balanced ventilation with heat recovery, and minimal thermal bridging. Whether new construction or deep energy retrofit, Passive House delivers resilient, comfortable, and cost-effective buildings. 

The benefits of Passive House design are extensive—and directly align with New York City’s goals for energy equity, public health, and sustainability: 

Dramatic energy reduction: Buildings built to the Passive House standard cut energy use by up to 60 percent overall, significantly lowering utility bills for owners and tenants alike. Case study data has proven that Passive House buildings use 32 to 58 percent less energy than their conventionally-built peer buildings. The savings are even more staggering when compared to older, existing building stock, with buildings spending as much as three times in energy costs in comparison. 

Exceptional indoor air quality: Passive House buildings continuously filter fresh air through high-performance ventilation systems, drastically reducing pollutants, allergens, and moisture—a clear win for tenant health, especially in low-income and frontline communities often burdened by poor indoor air. The significance of this additional armour against poor air quality has been realized even more with increasing wildfire smoke events that make already poor outdoor city air quality much more hazardous.  

Resilience to climate extremes: With superior insulation and airtightness, Passive House buildings maintain stable indoor temperatures even during power outages or extreme weather—an increasingly important feature as the city grapples with more frequent heatwaves and storms. Many recently built passive house buildings have become low-cost safe haven cooling and warming centers due to their resilience during extreme weather events. Passive House buildings help alleviate stress on our electrical grid, showing the benefits spread far beyond the building footprint.  

Increased building value: As tenants, buyers, and investors grow more sustainability-conscious, Passive House-certified properties are becoming more desirable and future-proof. They are not only easier to market, but they are also cheaper to operate which helps attract residents and developers alike.  

Compliance and incentives: From New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act to Local Law 97 in New York City, regulatory pressure to decarbonize buildings is growing. Passive House offers a clear path to compliance, alongside potential tax credits, favorable financing, and incentive programs for green building certifications. 

So, if Passive House checks all the boxes—efficiency, health, affordability, resilience—why isn’t it everywhere in New York City? The most persistent myth is cost. It’s long been assumed that building to Passive House standards is prohibitively expensive. However, research is challenging that assumption. 

A report in “Multifamily Dive” found that Passive House multifamily buildings are now nearing cost parity with traditional construction. In fact, the cost premium has shrunk to 3.5 percent on average, and in some cases, Passive House projects have been built at the same or lower cost than comparable code-built buildings. 

The key to unlocking cost-effectiveness lies in integration—engaging Passive House consultants early in the design process, coordinating trades and contractors around performance goals, and applying lessons learned from the growing number of successful projects. As the local Passive House market matures, so does the availability of knowledgeable professionals, cost-effective materials, and proven workflows. 

Additionally, Passive House buildings can often leverage specialized financing, such as green bonds, PACE financing, and low-interest loans or incentive subsidies through New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and NYC Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) programs. These mechanisms help bridge any remaining first-cost gaps and accelerate return on investment. 

As reported in the Building Performance Association Journal, “the longer-term cost savings, improved health outcomes, and environmental benefits more than justify the slight increase in upfront investment.” Even on the extreme end, early adopters of Passive House faced only as high as an 8 percent cost increase, with payback periods under 10 years. 

For developers and owners considering Passive House, here are a few key considerations: 

Start early: Passive House success hinges on planning. Bringing in certified Passive House consultants during conceptual design helps avoid costly redesigns or change orders down the line. 

Know your typology: Passive House can be applied to nearly any building type—residential, commercial, institutional. It works especially well for multifamily buildings, where energy and health benefits scale across units and tenants. 

Think long-term: Passive House buildings enjoy lower operating costs, reduced maintenance needs, and higher occupant satisfaction. For owners with a 10-plus year hold strategy, Passive House isn’t just viable—it’s smart business. 

Leverage support: New York City is home to an active Passive House community, including groups like NY Passive House (NYPH), the Passive House Network (PHN), and the Building Energy Exchange (BE-Ex), which offer training, case studies, and technical assistance. Thanks to local policy and a hub of subject matter expertise from early adopters and pioneers, New York City is a well-supported market for Passive House design and construction. 

As the city races to retrofit its building stock and meet carbon reduction goals, Passive House offers a solution that’s not just idealistic—it’s practical and proven. It’s a path to cleaner air, lower bills, and climate justice. 

Imagine a city where affordable housing isn’t synonymous with drafty windows or asthma-inducing mold. A city where our most vulnerable residents live in buildings designed to protect them from both the cold of winter and the heat of summer. A city where every new building is an investment in the future—not just for profit, but for people and the planet. 

We already have the tools, the data, and the momentum. What we need now is the collective will to shift from pilot projects and one-off examples to scalable transformation. 

The Passive House movement is no longer a niche. It’s a necessity. And New York City, with its ambitious climate targets, its dense multifamily landscape, and its commitment to equity, is uniquely positioned to lead. 

For New York City to truly become a climate-resilient, equitable city, Passive House needs to move from “why?” to “why not?” The performance benefits are well documented. The cost barriers are diminishing. The health, safety, and comfort of our communities depend on the choices we make today.

Whether you’re a building owner, developer, architect, or policymaker, the path is clear: now is the time to build better. Now is the time to build Passive. 

Carmel Pratt is a senior technical advisor at Bright Power, where she provides expert guidance on building performance and sustainability for ground-up new construction and rehabilitation projects.

The post Opinion: Passive House Design is Key to Meeting NYC’s Climate Goals appeared first on City Limits.