By LARRY NEUMEISTER

NEW YORK (AP) — Three more federal prosecutors who had been involved in the now-dismissed corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams resigned on Tuesday, saying they felt pressured into admitting wrongdoing or regret as a condition for being reinstated to their jobs.

Related Articles

Federal judge blocks Trump administration from dismantling Voice of America

RFK Jr. plans to phase out artificial dyes from the US food supply

Beyond Ivy League, RFK Jr.’s NIH slashed science funding across states that backed Trump

RFK Jr. struggles to navigate frustrated supporters and a demanding boss

With the border quiet, Texas ponders spending another $6.5 billion on border security

“We will not confess wrongdoing when there was none,” Celia Cohen, Andrew Rohrbach and Derek Wikstrom wrote in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

The three assistant U.S. attorneys had been placed on leave after a number of prosecutors in New York and Washington refused to follow orders to end the case against Adams, a Democrat.

The letter was published by several news outlets. Its authenticity was confirmed to The Associated Press by a person who received the letter.

The resignations came the same day that Jay Clayton, former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, was sworn in as the New York office’s new top prosecutor.

Adams was indicted last year, accused of taking illegal campaign contributions and travel perks from a Turkish official and others seeking to buy influence when he previously served as Brooklyn borough president.

In February, after President Donald Trump took office, the Justice Department ordered then-acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, to drop the charges against Adams — not due to the merits of the case, but rather so the mayor could assist in the Trump administration ’s immigration agenda.

Sassoon opted to resign instead, as did several other career prosecutors who objected to the criminal case being dismissed for political reasons. The case was eventually dismissed in April.

Cohen, Rohrbach and Wikstrom wrote in their resignation letter that it had become clear to them that one of the “preconditions” Blanche placed on them returning to work was to “express regret and admit some wrongdoing by the Office in connection with the refusal to move to dismiss the case.”

The new leaders of the Justice Department, they wrote, had “decided that obedience supersedes all else, requiring us to abdicate our legal and ethical obligations in favor of directions from Washington. That is wrong.”

Blanche said in a statement that there was nothing illegal or unethical about “dismissing the flawed prosecution against Mayor Adams.”

“Any suggestion to the contrary by anybody, especially former federal prosecutors, is wrong and disingenuous,” he wrote.

Emil Bove, then the acting deputy attorney general, had argued previously that Adams was being prosecuted because he had criticized former President Joe Biden’s immigration policies.

In dismissing the case, Judge Dale E. Ho noted that the record showed the prosecutors who worked on the case had followed all guidelines.

“There is no evidence — zero — that they had any improper motives,” Ho wrote in his ruling.

Associated Press writer Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report from Washington.

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and REBECCA BOONE

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge agreed Tuesday to block the Trump administration from dismantling Voice of America, the 83-year-old international news service created by Congress.

Related Articles

Three more prosecutors resign in aftermath of dismissal of case against NYC mayor

RFK Jr. plans to phase out artificial dyes from the US food supply

Beyond Ivy League, RFK Jr.’s NIH slashed science funding across states that backed Trump

RFK Jr. struggles to navigate frustrated supporters and a demanding boss

With the border quiet, Texas ponders spending another $6.5 billion on border security

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the administration illegally required Voice of America to cease operations for the first time since its World War II-era inception.

Attorneys for Voice of America employees and contractors asked the judge to restore its ability to broadcast at the same level before President Donald Trump moved to slash its funding. Lamberth mostly agreed, ordering the administration to restore Voice of America and two of the independent broadcast networks operated by the U.S. Agency for Global Media — Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks — until the lawsuits are settled.

The judge denied the request for two other independent networks, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Open Technology Fund.

In a March 26 court filing, plaintiffs’ attorneys said nearly all 1,300 of Voice of America’s employees were placed on administrative leave, while 500 contractors were told that their contracts would be terminated at the end of last month.

The U.S. Agency for Global Media, which runs Voice of America, has operated other broadcast outlets, including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Afghanistan. Congress has appropriated nearly $860 million for the Agency for Global Media for the current fiscal year.

Voice of America went dark soon after Trump issued an executive order on March 14 that pared funding to the Agency for Global Media and six other unrelated federal entities. It also moved to terminate VOA contracts with news agencies, including The Associated Press.

Voice of America has operated since World War II, beaming news into authoritarian countries that don’t have a free press. It began as a counterpoint to Nazi propaganda and played a prominent role in the U.S. government’s Cold War efforts to curb the spread of communism.

Trump and his Republican allies have accused Voice of America of having a “leftist bias” and failing to project “pro-American” values to its audience.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys say it reports and broadcasts the news “truthfully, impartially, and objectively.”

“That simple mission is a powerful one for those living across the globe without access to a free press and without the ability to otherwise discern what is truly happening,” they wrote.

Government attorneys argued that the plaintiffs failed to show how they have been irreparably harmed.

“Rather, Plaintiffs take aim at what is best described as a temporary pause on its activities while Global Media determines how to bring Voice of America into compliance with the President’s directive,” they wrote.

The Agency for Global Media’s leadership includes special adviser Kari Lake, a former TV news anchor and political candidate.

In his written ruling, Lamberth noted that the U.S. Agency for Global Media never finalized its grant agreement with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty for the current fiscal year, and the Open Technology Fund withdrew its legal request for a temporary restraining order earlier this year.

Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks do have current grant agreements in place, and like Voice of America, are funded by Congressional appropriations.

Lamberth said the funding cuts “reflect a hasty, indiscriminate approach” — particularly since they were made the same day that President Trump signed the congressional appropriation that funded Voice of America and the networks through September of this year.

Not only is there an absence of “reasoned analysis” from the defendants; there is an absence of any analysis whatsoever,” Lamberth said.

The labor union that represents workers at the U.S. Agency for Global Media called the ruling a “powerful affirmation of the role that independent journalism plays in advancing democracy and countering disinformation.”

“These networks are essential tools of American soft power — trusted sources of truth in places where it is often scarce,” said Tom Yazdgerdi, president of the American Foreign Service Association, in a press release Tuesday. “By upholding editorial independence, the court has protected the credibility of USAGM journalists and the global mission they serve.”

3M Co. stood by its full-year financial guidance while acknowledging new risks from the unfolding trade war, compounding the challenges for Chief Executive Officer William Brown as he tries to turn around the sprawling Maplewood-based manufacturer.

Tariffs will have a negative impact of as much as 40 cents a share on full-year earnings, the company said Tuesday in a statement as it reported first-quarter results. Still, 3M reaffirmed guidance for 2025 adjusted profit of $7.60 to $7.90 a share.

Shares rose 8.1% Tuesday and contributed to Tuesday’s broad market rally.

The caveat on its outlook highlights how President Donald Trump’s trade war is rippling across the economy and cutting into growth expectations. 3M as recently as March reiterated its full-year guidance that called for a bigger profit and organic sales growth of 2% to 3%.

3M is considered an economic bellwether because its portfolio of thousands of consumer and industrial products give it broad exposure to a wide swath of the economy. The company derives about 11% of its sales in China, according to RBC Capital Markets, putting it at risk from the growing trade conflict between Washington and Beijing, which have imposed blanket tariffs of 100% or more on each country’s goods.

3M is looking at measures to mitigate tariffs, including shifting production to optimize its network and possible surcharges on certain customers.

The company’s expected tariff impact, “suggests a bigger hit especially at the high end than our analysis,” wrote Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Karen Ubelhart.

3M’s above-consensus adjusted operating margin signals “improving operations, but that might not last if demand declines,” she added.

Sales for the first-quarter fell 1% to $6 billion and adjusted earnings per share from continuing operations were $1.88, both ahead of analyst expectations. Adjusted operating margin of 23.5% also beat estimates.

Related Articles

Tariffs could cost the average American household $3,800 per year. Here’s how to save for it

Walgreens to pay up to $350 million in U.S. opioid settlement

Tackling tariffs: What some companies are saying, and doing, about tariffs

Forest Lake newspaper will now be based in Stillwater

US Treasury secretary says trade war with China is not ‘sustainable’

 

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is suing the administration of President Donald Trump to challenge recent executive orders he says violate the civil rights of transgender children.

Two Trump orders — one banning transgender athletes in women’s and girls’ sports and another aimed at removing recognition of transgender people in federal policy — are aimed at “bullying” transgender youth, Ellison said at a Tuesday news conference announcing the lawsuit.

Ellison took action this week amid ongoing legal threats from the federal government against Minnesota and other states for defying Trump’s order on transgender athletes.

Ellison has maintained that following the order violates Minnesota’s human rights law and the U.S. Constitution, and he decided to preemptively sue as the Department of Justice continued threats to take legal action and cut off federal funding to the state.

“I’m not going to sit around waiting for the Trump administration to sue Minnesota,” Ellison told reporters at his office in the Minnesota Capitol on Tuesday. “One, they’re wrong about the law — both federal and state law. Two, we will not let a small group of vulnerable children who are only trying to be healthy and to live their lives be demonized.”

Title IX

The Trump Administration asserts that allowing those born male who identify as female to participate in women’s school sports violates Title IX, a federal law banning sex discrimination in education.

The president’s Feb. 5 executive order on transgender athletes allows federal agencies to enforce the administration’s interpretation of Title IX, though some states and high school sports groups have said they would not comply.

The Trump Administration sued Maine last week after the state refused to comply with the transgender athletics order.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi threatened to sue Minnesota in February after Ellison issued an official opinion that complying with Trump’s order would violate state law. He issued the opinion after the Minnesota State High School League, the governing body for state school athletics, had sought his advice on the matter.

Earlier that month, the U.S. Department of Education started investigating Minnesota and California high school sports organizations because they planned to go against the federal government’s new policy.

Minnesota State High School League

Athletic associations had 60 days from the executive order to take action on transgender athletes, according to the Minnesota State High School League, which has said its rules allowing transgender student participation currently remain in place.

The Justice Department continued to push on Minnesota after the initial threats. In an April 8 letter to Ellison, Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon demanded that Ellison clarify his legal opinion or face legal action. Dhillon also threatened to withhold federal funding from the state.

In his lawsuit filed in Minnesota U.S. District Court, Ellison argues Trump’s executive orders violate the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution by effectively legislating from the executive branch — a right reserved for Congress — and by violating the 10th Amendment limits to federal power over the states.

Further, the lawsuit disputes the administration’s interpretation of Title IX, arguing it instead preserves protections for gender identity.

Legislative action

Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, said Ellison should drop the issue and called his lawsuit a waste of state resources.

“It’s extremely disappointing that Attorney General Ellison would rather risk federal funding and file yet another taxpayer funded lawsuit against the Trump administration than simply do the right thing and keep boys out of girls sports,” Demuth said. “It’s a waste of taxpayer money to further a political agenda that makes girls less safe and makes sports less fair.”

The Minnesota Legislature earlier this year considered a bill to ban transgender athletes in school sports, though it failed on a party-line vote in a closely divided House of Representatives.

The measure sponsored by Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover, called for restricting participation in girls sports at the elementary and secondary school levels to biological females as determined by genetics and reproductive organs.

Republicans called the bill the “Preserving Girls’ Sports Act” and say it will keep a level playing field in school athletics.

Democratic-Farmer-Labor lawmakers and LGBT activists called the bill a “hateful” attack on the rights of transgender people and a distraction from issues that affect significantly broader swaths of the public.

The MSHSL has allowed students to decide whether to participate in boys or girls sports based on their gender identity since 2014.

Related Articles

Will the MN Legislature pass a bonding bill this year?

Senate president faces scrutiny, MN lawmakers say ethics rules need a look

Private schools face cuts under Gov. Tim Walz’s proposed budget

Keri Heintzeman wins Republican primary in 6th Senate District

Audio of Keith Ellison with Feeding Our Future defendants draws Republican scrutiny