WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly changed his tone Wednesday about his Colombian counterpart, Gustavo Petro, saying the two had exchanged a friendly phone call and that he’d invited the leader of the South American country to the White House.

Related Articles

Trump seeks $6.2 million in legal fees from Fani Willis’ office over election interference case

House takes step toward extending Affordable Care Act subsidies, overpowering GOP leadership

California loses $160M for delaying revocation of 17,000 commercial driver’s licenses for immigrants

US will exit 66 international organizations as it further retreats from global cooperation

Trump immigration policies and a lower fertility rate slow US growth projection, budget office says

“It was a Great Honor to speak with the President of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, who called to explain the situation of drugs and other disagreements that we have had,” Trump posted on his social media site Wednesday night. “I appreciated his call and tone, and look forward to meeting him in the near future.” He said that meeting would take place at the White House.

That came mere days after Trump said in the wake of the U.S. operation in Venezuela over the weekend that “Colombia is very sick too” and accused Petro of ”making cocaine and selling it to the United States” before adding: “He’s not going to be doing it very long, let me tell you.” Asked whether U.S intervention was possible, Trump responded, ”Sounds good to me.”

An official with the Department of Homeland Security recently suggested that following or recording federal law enforcement officers “sure sounds like obstruction of justice.” The statement was given to Reason magazine in response to a direct question, was confirmed in writing and followed by a warning that DHS will prosecute such conduct “to the fullest extent of the law.”

It’s also ridiculous and an affront to First Amendment case law.

As Reason’s C.J. Ciaramella observes, the issue is not whether officers deserve protection from real interference or danger. They do. The issue is that recording or observing officers in public is not — in and of itself — an act of interference. It is a protected form of gathering information about how the government exercises its authority.

Seven federal circuit courts have upheld the public’s right to record police or federal agents, as long as the person filming is not physically obstructing the officers. In one 2017 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “a First Amendment right to record the police does exist,” subject to reasonable limits. The 10th Circuit echoed that view in 2022 when it allowed a First Amendment claim to proceed after a man was barred from filming a traffic stop. Courts have also protected the public’s right to alert others to police activity, recognizing it as part of public discourse and not a crime.

This principle is not new. In 1987, the Supreme Court struck down a Houston ordinance that made it a crime to interrupt or challenge an officer. Justice William Brennan wrote that the freedom to oppose police action without risking arrest helps distinguish a free country from a police state. Recording officers is simply a modern way of maintaining that freedom.

State attempts to limit filming have largely failed. Mr. Ciaramella points out that Arizona’s 2022 law restricting filming within 8 feet of police was blocked by a federal judge. Other states have passed distance requirements, but these measures face challenges because of vague language and concerns about arbitrary enforcement.

Simply recording officers is not an act of aggression. It is a method of ensuring transparency, reinforcing public trust and creating an independent record of government conduct. It is central to accountability in a democratic society. As Mr. Ciaramella points out, some of the most serious allegations against federal officers in recent years have surfaced only because bystanders had the courage to hit “record.”

DHS officials must be free to go about their business. But bystanders must also be free to document their activities as long as they do not willfully obstruct the administration of justice. The Constitution has already answered the question. The right to observe government power is not subject to the whims of those who carry badges.

— The Las Vegas Review-Journal

PITTSBURGH (AP) — The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s owners announced Wednesday the paper will be shutting down in a few months, citing financial losses.

Block Communications Inc. announced it will cease publication on May 3. The paper is printed on Thursdays and Sundays and says on its website the average paid circulation is 83,000.

A couple dozen union members returned to work at the Post-Gazette in November after a three-year strike.

Related Articles

California loses $160M for delaying revocation of 17,000 commercial driver’s licenses for immigrants

US will exit 66 international organizations as it further retreats from global cooperation

Trump immigration policies and a lower fertility rate slow US growth projection, budget office says

Trump proposes massive increase in 2027 defense spending to $1.5T, citing ‘dangerous times’

Driver shot in Minneapolis is at least the fifth person killed in US immigration crackdown

More than five years ago, the newspaper declared it had reached a bargaining impasse with the Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh and unilaterally imposed terms and conditions of employment on those workers. The paper was later found to have bargained in bad faith by making offers that were not intended to help reach a deal and by declaring an impasse prematurely.

The announcement that Block was shutting it down came on the same day the U.S. Supreme Court declined the PG Publishing Co. Inc.’s emergency appeal to halt an National Labor Relations Board order that forced it to abide by health care coverage policies in an expired union contract.

Andrew Goldstein, president of the Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh, said the paper’s journalists have a long history of award-winning work.

“Instead of simply following the law, the owners chose to punish local journalists and the city of Pittsburgh,” Goldstein said. The union said employees were notified in a video on Zoom in which company officials did not speak live.

The Post-Gazette said Block Communications has lost hundreds of millions of dollars over two decades in operating the paper, and the company said it deemed “continued cash losses at this scale no longer sustainable.”

The Block family said in a statement it was “proud of the service the Post-Gazette has provided to Pittsburgh for nearly a century.”

A phone message seeking comment was left Wednesday at Block Communications headquarters in Toledo, Ohio.

The paper traces its roots to 1786, when the Pittsburgh Gazette began as a four-page weekly, and became a leading advocate for the abolition of slavery in the 19th century. It went through a series of mastheads and owners before 1927, when Paul Block obtained the paper and named it the Post-Gazette.

By KATE BRUMBACK, Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) — President Donald Trump is seeking more than $6.2 million in attorney fees and costs from the Fulton County District Attorney’s office stemming from the election interference case brought against him and others that was recently dismissed.

Georgia state legislators last year passed a law that says that if a prosecutor is disqualified from a case because of their own improper conduct and the case is then dismissed, anyone charged in that case is entitled to recoup “all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred” in their defense.

Related Articles

House takes step toward extending Affordable Care Act subsidies, overpowering GOP leadership

California loses $160M for delaying revocation of 17,000 commercial driver’s licenses for immigrants

US will exit 66 international organizations as it further retreats from global cooperation

Trump immigration policies and a lower fertility rate slow US growth projection, budget office says

Trump invited to give State of the Union address on Feb. 24

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her office were removed from the case over an “appearance of impropriety” created by a romantic relationship she had with the special prosecutor she chose to lead the case. The prosecutor who took over the case late last year dismissed it in November.

“In accordance with Georgia law, President Trump has moved the Court to award reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in his defense of the politically motivated, and now rightfully dismissed, case brought by disqualified DA Fani Willis,” Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, said in a statement.

The Associated Press has reached out to representatives for Willis seeking comment.