By AAMER MADHANI

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has arrived at a delicate moment as he weighs whether to order a U.S. military response against the Iranian government as it continues a violent crackdown on protests that have left nearly 600 dead and led to the arrests of thousands across the country.

Related Articles

US accuses Russia of ‘dangerous and inexplicable escalation’ of war in Ukraine as Trump seeks peace

What to know about the warrants most immigration agents use to make arrests

FBI says it has found no video of Border Patrol agent shooting 2 people in Oregon

New video shows the minutes before immigration officer fatally shoots woman in Minneapolis

Court says Trump administration illegally blocked $7.6B in clean energy grants to Democratic states

The U.S. president has repeatedly threatened Tehran with military action if his administration found the Islamic Republic was using deadly force against antigovernment protesters. It’s a red line that Trump has said he believes Iran is “starting to cross” and has left him and his national security team weighing “very strong options.”

But the U.S. military — which Trump has warned Tehran is “locked and loaded” — appears, at least for the moment, to have been placed on standby mode as Trump ponders next steps, saying that Iranian officials want to have talks with the White House.

“What you’re hearing publicly from the Iranian regime is quite different from the messages the administration is receiving privately, and I think the president has an interest in exploring those messages,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday. “However, with that said, the president has shown he’s unafraid to use military options if and when he deems necessary, and nobody knows that better than Iran.”

Hours later, Trump announced on social media that he would slap 25% tariffs on countries doing business with Tehran “effective immediately” — his first action aimed at penalizing Iran for the protest crackdown, and his latest example of using tariffs as a tool to force friends and foes on the global stage to bend to his will.

China, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Brazil and Russia are among economies that do business with Tehran. The White House declined to offer further comment or details about the president’s tariff announcement.

The White House has offered scant details on Iran’s outreach for talks, but Leavitt confirmed that the president’s special envoy Steve Witkoff will be a key player engaging Tehran.

Trump told reporters Sunday evening that a “meeting is being set up” with Iranian officials but cautioned that “we may have to act because of what’s happening before the meeting.”

“We’re watching the situation very carefully,” Trump said.

Can the protests be sustained?

Demonstrations in Iran continue, but analysts say it remains unclear just how long protesters will remain on the street.

An internet blackout imposed by Tehran makes it hard for protesters to understand just how widespread the demonstrations have become, said Vali Nasr, a State Department adviser during the early part of the Obama administration, and now professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University.

“It makes it very difficult for news from one city or pictures from one city to incense or motivate action in another city,” Nasr said. “The protests are leaderless, they’re organization-less. They are actually genuine eruptions of popular anger. And without leadership and direction and organization, such protests, not just in Iran, everywhere in the world — it’s very difficult for them to sustain themselves.”

Meanwhile, Trump is dealing with a series of other foreign policy emergencies around the globe.

It’s been just over a week since the U.S. military launched a successful raid to arrest Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro and remove him from power. The U.S. continues to mass an unusually large number of troops in the Caribbean Sea.

Trump is also focused on trying to get Israel and Hamas onto the second phase of a peace deal in Gaza and broker an agreement between Russia and Ukraine to end the nearly four-year war in Eastern Europe.

But advocates urging Trump to take strong action against Iran say this moment offers an opportunity to further diminish the theocratic government that’s ruled the country since the Islamic revolution in 1979.

The demonstrations are the biggest Iran has seen in years — protests spurred by the collapse of Iranian currency that have morphed into a larger test of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s repressive rule.

Activists take part in a rally supporting protesters in Iran at Lafayette Park, across from the White House, in Washington, Sunday, Jan. 11, 2026. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

Iran, through the country’s parliamentary speaker, has warned that the U.S. military and Israel would be “legitimate targets” if Washington uses force to protect demonstrators.

Trump allies want to see US back protesters

Some of Trump’s hawkish allies in Washington are calling on the president not to miss the opportunity to act decisively against a vulnerable Iranian government that they argue is reeling after last summer’s 12-day war with Israel and battered by U.S. strikes in June on key Iranian nuclear sites.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on social media Monday that the moment offers Trump the chance to show that he’s serious about enforcing red lines. Graham alluded to former Democratic President Barack Obama in 2012 setting a red line on the use of chemical weapons by Syria’s Bashar Assad against his own people — only not to follow through with U.S. military action after the then-Syrian leader crossed that line the following year.

“It is not enough to say we stand with the people of Iran,” Graham said. “The only right answer here is that we act decisively to protect protesters in the street — and that we’re not Obama — proving to them we will not tolerate their slaughter without action.”

Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, another close Trump ally, said the “goal of every Western leader should be to destroy the Iranian dictatorship at this moment of its vulnerability.”

“In a few weeks either the dictatorship will be gone or the Iranian people will have been defeated and suppressed and a campaign to find the ringleaders and kill them will have begun,” Gingrich said in an X post. “There is no middle ground.”

Indeed, Iranian authorities have managed to snuff out rounds of mass protests before, including the “Green Movement” following the disputed election in 2009 and the “woman, life, freedom” protests that broke out after 22-year-old Mahsa Amini died in custody of the state’s morality police in 2022.

Trump and his national security team have already begun reviewing options for potential military action and he is expected to continue talks with his team this week.

Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of the Iran program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank, said “there is a fast-diminishing value to official statements by the president promising to hold the regime accountable, but then staying on the sidelines.”

Trump, Taleblu noted, has shown a desire to maintain “maximum flexibility rooted in unpredictability” as he deals with adversaries.

“But flexibility should not bleed into a policy of locking in or bailing out an anti-American regime which is on the ropes at home and has a bounty on the president’s head abroad,” he added.

By MICHAEL R. SISAK and LARRY NEUMEISTER

NEW YORK (AP) — Getting married and allegedly embracing a monogamous lifestyle cannot prove the innocence of a man charged in a conspiracy with his two brothers — both luxury real estate brokers — to sexually assault dozens of women, a federal judge said Monday.

Related Articles

Man accused of recklessly driving U-Haul into Iran protest in Los Angeles, police say

Judge rejects lawyer’s disputed bid to join ex-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s defense team

Judge is asked for emergency hearing after MN lawmakers blocked from ICE facility in Minneapolis

FBI says arson suspect targeted Mississippi synagogue because it’s a Jewish house of worship

The Trevor Project receives $45M from MacKenzie Scott after difficult years and federal funding cuts

Judge Valerie E. Caproni rejected Alon Alexander’s request to dismiss one count of the indictment he faces and use his 2019 engagement and subsequent marriage as a defense at a trial scheduled to start next week in Manhattan with jury selection.

The three brothers — Alon, Oren and Tal Alexander — are jailed without bail after pleading not guilty to conspiracy and other charges alleging that they drugged and raped women.

Oren Alexander and Tal Alexander sold high-end properties in New York City, Miami and Los Angeles before the charges were filed alleging that they used their wealth and influence to attack women from 2002 to 2021.

Alon Alexander’s lawyers argued that getting engaged and married signaled his exit from the single life and amounted to a withdrawal from any alleged conspiracy.

Caproni said he “saw an opportunity to reach for the prize” and try to win an acquittal with the argument as she denied his request and said he is also precluded from introducing evidence of his engagement and marriage at the trial.

The judge wrote that proof of Alon Alexander’s engagement and marriage is irrelevant and amounted to hearsay that could not be introduced at trial, including photographs, social media posts and home videos of his engagement announcement, along with statements from his co-defendants and a rabbi.

In a footnote, Caproni wrote that Alon Alexander’s contention that his withdrawal from “the single life” meant he abandoned any conduct that could be part of the sex abuse conspiracy “fails to adequately grapple with the nuance of the Government’s allegations or the contours of a sex trafficking conspiracy more generally.”

She said participation in the criminal conspiracy was not “comparable or akin to participation in ‘the single life.’”

“There are plenty of single men who engage in sexual activity without trafficking, drugging, or raping women and girls,” the judge said. “By the same token, the inverse of the Government’s alleged conspiracy is not, for example, ‘the engaged life’ or ‘the married life.’”

Thus, she said, there is nothing about the “mere transition from ‘single’ to ‘engaged’ that clearly indicates that Defendant withdrew himself from the conspiracy, or that he would cease helping his brothers accomplish the goals of the conspiracy — even if his participation in the scheme no longer involved him having sex (consensual or otherwise) with women that were not his fiancee.”

By SAFIYAH RIDDLE and VALERIE GONZALEZ

As the Trump administration intensifies immigration enforcement nationwide, a wave of high-profile arrests — many unfolding at private homes and businesses and captured on video — has pushed one legal question into the center of the national debate: When can federal immigration agents lawfully enter private property to make an arrest?

Related Articles

US accuses Russia of ‘dangerous and inexplicable escalation’ of war in Ukraine as Trump seeks peace

Trump holds off on military action against Iran’s protest crackdown as he ‘explores’ Tehran messages

FBI says it has found no video of Border Patrol agent shooting 2 people in Oregon

New video shows the minutes before immigration officer fatally shoots woman in Minneapolis

Court says Trump administration illegally blocked $7.6B in clean energy grants to Democratic states

That question has taken on new urgency in cities like Minneapolis, where thousands of federal agents are operating on the streets amid protests, confrontations and a fatal shooting, sharpening scrutiny of the legal authority immigration officers rely on when they arrive at the front door.

At the heart of the debate is a legal distinction largely unfamiliar to the public but central to immigration enforcement.

Most immigration arrests are carried out under administrative warrants, internal documents issued by immigration authorities that authorize the arrest of a specific individual but do not permit officers to forcibly enter private homes or other non-public spaces without consent. Only criminal warrants signed by judges carry that authority. Legal experts say the administration’s aggressive enforcement push, combined with public awareness of those limits, is increasingly turning door-knock encounters into flashpoints, fueling confrontations that are now playing out in cities across the country.

Here is what to know about the limitations on the warrants that authorize most immigration related arrests.

Immigration warrants typically don’t authorize entry onto private property

All law enforcement operations — including those conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection — are governed by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects all people in the country from unreasonable searches and seizures. That means law enforcement is required to have a warrant before searching one’s private property or arresting someone, regardless of immigration status.

But not all warrants are the same. Typically, arrests carried out by Department of Homeland Security agencies are authorized by administrative warrants — sometimes known as immigration warrants — not judicial warrants.

Judicial warrants are issued by a court and signed by a magistrate or a state or federal judge. These warrants allow a relevant law enforcement agency to apprehend a specified individual in any context — regardless of whether the person is on public or on private property. In other words, law enforcement is legally allowed to enter and search a home or business to make the arrest without the consent of the property owner once a judge signs off on the arrest.

By contrast, the administrative warrants used in most immigration operations are sanctioned by an agency, officer or immigration judge, and don’t allow law enforcement to forcibly enter private property to detain someone.

That means people can legally refuse federal immigration agents entry into private property if the agents only have an administrative warrant.

A federal immigration officer deploys pepper spray as officers make an arrest Sunday, Jan. 11, 2026, in Minneapolis. (AP Photo/John Locher)

There are limited exceptions, some of which include if someone is in immediate danger, an officer is actively chasing a suspect or if someone is calling for help inside the residence. But those exceptions don’t apply in routine immigration arrests, legal experts say.

John Sandweg, a former ICE acting director, said officers are trained on what circumstances legally justify forced entry. But as the scope of ICE’s work has expanded, and more Border Patrol agents have begun conducting the work of ICE officers, there is a greater chance that agents will misapply the rules, he said.

“Your risks of all of these types of incidents increase dramatically when you take officers out of their normal operating environment and ask them to do things that they have not been trained to do, because it’s not part of their core missions,” Sandweg said.

Mounting tensions in Minneapolis

The thorny legal distinction between judicial and administrative warrants came to the fore on Sunday when immigration law enforcement raided a private home to make an arrest in Minneapolis, after clashing with protesters who confronted the heavily armed agents. Documents reviewed by The Associated Press revealed that the agents only had an administrative warrant — meaning there was no judge that authorized the raid on private property.

When asked, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin didn’t provide a legal justification for the forced entry and arrest of the man, who is a Liberian national with a deportation order from 2023. She said his arrest was part of the administration’s efforts to arrest “the worst of the worst” and added that he had that a criminal history including “robbery, drug possession with the intent to sell, possession of a deadly weapon, malicious destruction and theft.”

McLaughlin didn’t specify whether he was convicted of any of those crimes, or whether his arrest was related to any criminal activity.

Vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, Heidi Altman, said she couldn’t comment on that specific raid, but said that generally an officer entering a home without consent or permission could result in serious consequences.

“That is not just an illegal arrest. It’s numerous illegal actions by the officer themselves that could open up liability, not just for being sued, but potential criminal actions under state law as well,” she explained.

But in the current political climate, Altman said, it isn’t clear if there are any realistic avenues for accountability since the federal government would be responsible for investigating such a breech.

“There are layers of federal laws and regulations and policies prohibiting this kind of behavior. But then the second layer is: Is the federal government going to impose consequences?” she said.

On top of that, immigrants have less recourse after an illegal arrest or search, since the illegally obtained evidence can still be used in immigration court. It’s called the exclusionary rule, Altman explained, and the consequences that the officer may face would not undo the immediate consequences immigrants could face if they are quickly deported.

A family member reacts after federal immigration officers make an arrest Sunday, Jan. 11, 2026, in Minneapolis. (AP Photo/John Locher)

“As those legal challenges come and people are facing very, very quick detentions and deportations on the basis of these illegal arrests, there’s very little recourse in actual immigration court proceedings that allows people to have a judge disregard evidence or the actual arrest, even if it was done in this very violent, illegal manner,” Altman said.

‘Know-your-rights’ campaigns

ICE has long relied on “knock and talks” to make apprehensions, informally requesting residents to leave a home without giving any indication they plan to make an immigration arrest. As outlined in a 2020 lawsuit in which a federal judge found the practice illegal, officers tell their targets that they need them to step outside to answer a few questions. In one case, they told a woman that they were probation officers looking for her brother.

In response, activists, lawyers and local governments have launched “know-your-rights” campaigns around the country, attempting to educate people on the legal nuances of the extremely convoluted legal framework that is supposed to govern immigration law enforcement.

Many groups have published fact sheets and infographics on social media, while others facilitate meetings that go over constitutional protections that immigrants have — regardless of legal status — in interactions with federal agents.

Often groups will instruct immigrants to request to see a warrant before opening the door if an immigration officer knocks. The trainings also typically emphasize that an immigrant can refuse to open the door if law enforcement only has an administrative warrant.

By CLAIRE RUSH

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The FBI said in a court document made public Monday that it had found no surveillance or other video of a Border Patrol agent shooting and wounding two people in a pickup truck during an immigration enforcement operation in Portland, Oregon, last week.

Related Articles

New video shows the minutes before immigration officer fatally shoots woman in Minneapolis

Court says Trump administration illegally blocked $7.6B in clean energy grants to Democratic states

Minnesota and the Twin Cities sue the federal government to stop the immigration crackdown

Bringing charges against the Fed: What we do (and don’t) know

Sen. Kelly sues the Pentagon over attempts to punish him, declaring it unconstitutional

Agents told investigators that one of their colleagues opened fire Thursday after the driver put the truck in reverse and slammed into an unoccupied car the agents had rented, smashing its headlights and knocking off its front bumper. The truck then pulled forward, and the agents said they feared for their own safety and that of the public, the document said.

The FBI has interviewed four of the six agents on the scene, the document said. It did not specify if the agent who fired the shots was among them.

The shooting, which came one day after a federal agent shot and killed a driver in Minneapolis, prompted protests over federal agents’ aggressive tactics during immigration enforcement operations. The Department of Homeland Security has said the two people in the truck entered the U.S. illegally and were affiliated with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

None of the six agents was recording body camera footage, and investigators have uncovered no surveillance or other video footage of the shooting, FBI Special Agent Daniel Jeffreys wrote in an affidavit supporting aggravated assault and property damage charges against the driver, Luis David Nino-Moncada.

The truck drove away after the shooting, which occurred in the parking lot of a medical office building. Nino-Moncada called 911 after arriving at an apartment complex several minutes away. He was placed in FBI custody after being treated for a gunshot wound to the arm and abdomen.

During an initial appearance Monday afternoon in federal court in Portland, he wore a white sweatshirt and sweatpants and appeared to hold out his left arm gingerly at an angle. An interpreter translated the judge’s comments for him. The judge ordered that he remain in detention and scheduled a preliminary hearing for Wednesday.

His passenger, Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras, was hospitalized after being shot in the chest and on Monday was being held at a private immigration detention facility in Tacoma, Washington, according to an online detainee locator system maintained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Nino-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras are Venezuela nationals and entered the U.S. illegally in 2022 and 2023, respectively, the Department of Homeland Security said. It identified Nino-Moncada as an associate of Tren de Aragua and Zambrano-Contreras as involved in a prostitution ring run by the gang.

Law enforcement officials work the scene following reports that federal immigration officers shot and wounded people in Portland, Ore., Thursday, Jan. 8, 2026. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)

“Anyone who crosses the red line of assaulting law enforcement will be met with the full force of this Justice Department,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said Monday in a news release announcing charges against Nino-Moncada. “This man — an illegal alien with ties to a foreign terrorist organization — should NEVER have been in our country to begin with, and we will ensure he NEVER walks free in America again.”

Oregon Federal Public Defender Fidel Cassino-DuCloux, who represents Nino-Moncada, did not immediately return messages from The Associated Press seeking comment. He told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the federal shooting of and the subsequent accusations against Nino-Moncada and his passenger follow “a well-worn playbook that the government has developed to justify the dangerous and unprofessional conduct of its agents.”

Portland Police Chief Bob Day confirmed last week that the pair had “some nexus” to the gang. Day said the two came to the attention of police during an investigation of a July shooting believed to have been carried out by gang members, but they were not identified as suspects.

Zambrano-Contreras was previously arrested for prostitution, Day said, and Nino-Moncada was present when a search warrant was served in that case.