WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s plea to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money as part of its anti-DEI efforts, while a lawsuit continues.

Related Articles

About 500 law firms sign brief challenging Trump’s executive orders targeting the legal community

Congress has the power to halt Trump’s tariffs. But Republicans aren’t ready to use it

Judge moves legal case of detained Turkish Tufts University student to Vermont

Trump holds off on TikTok ban after he almost closed deal with ByteDance, AP Source says

Senate takes up a budget plan crafted by Republicans to advance Trump’s agenda

The justices split 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the three liberal justices in dissent.

The cuts had been temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Boston, who found that they were already affecting training programs aimed at addressing a nationwide teacher shortage. The federal appeals court in Boston turned away an appeal from the administration to allow them to resume.

The emergency appeal is among several the high court is considering in which the Justice Department argues that lower-court judges have improperly obstructed President Donald Trump’s agenda.

U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a temporary restraining order sought by eight Democratic-led states that argued the cuts were likely driven by efforts from Trump’s administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

The Republican president also has signed an executive order calling for the dismantling of the Education Department, and his administration has already started overhauling much of its work, including cutting dozens of contracts it dismissed as “woke” and wasteful.

The two programs at issue — the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development — provide more than $600 million in grants for teacher preparation programs, often in subject areas such as math, science and special education, the states have argued. They said data has shown the programs had led to increased teacher retention rates and ensured that educators remain in the profession beyond five years.

The majority found that the states can keep the programs running with their own money for now, but the federal government likely wouldn’t be able to recover the cash if they ultimately win the lawsuit.

The administration halted the programs without notice in February. Joun, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, found that the cancellations probably violated a federal law that requires a clear explanation.

The appellate panel that rejected the administration’s request for a stay also was made up of judges appointed by Democrats.

California is leading the ongoing lawsuit, joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.

By DANICA KIRKA

LONDON (AP) — Prince Andrew’s damaged reputation and desperate need for cash are again causing headaches for King Charles III after a court released more documents on Friday showing how Andrew’s problems led him to become entangled with a suspected Chinese spy.

Related Articles

Officials say a Russian strike in central Ukraine kills 14 people and injures 50

Europe and Canada say they’ll spend more on defense, but are cool on US demands

Israeli strikes kill at least 17 in Gaza as ground troops enter Palestinian territory’s north

Yoon Suk Yeol removed as South Korea’s president over short-lived martial law

In Tunisia, snails inch toward replacing red meat as people turn to cheaper protein

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission released the witness statement of Dominic Hampshire, a senior aide to Andrew who helped arrange meetings between the prince and the suspected spy, Chinese businessman Tengbo Yang. Yang was eventually authorized to operate on Andrew’s behalf as he sought Chinese investors for an initiative called the Eurasia Fund.

Andrew, also known as the Duke of York, needed to find other ways to support himself after he was forced to give up all royal duties following a disastrous interview with the BBC in 2019, Hampshire said in the statement. Andrew gave the interview to address concerns about his links to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but it backfired when he failed to explain his continued contact with Epstein or show sympathy for his victims.

“After the Newsnight interview and in the following few months, it was clear that the duke’s reputation was irrecoverable,” Hampshire said in a 10-page statement dated May 25, 2024. “It was very clear internally within the royal household that we would have to look at options for the duke’s future away from royal duties,” he added.

Andrew’s vulnerability

British authorities worried that Andrew’s situation left him vulnerable to manipulation by Yang, who they believe was working on behalf of the United Front Work Department, an arm of the Chinese Communist Party that is used to influence foreign entities. Yang denies the allegations.

The British government barred Yang from entering the country in 2023 as a threat to national security. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission upheld that decision in December 2024.

Hampshire, who gave evidence on Yang’s behalf, said the king was briefed on Andrew’s initiatives.

“I have had two meetings with the Duke and His Majesty to discuss what the Duke can do moving forwards in a way that is acceptable to His Majesty,” Hampshire said. “It is also of note that, amongst other topics, the Eurasia Fund and (an investor) were discussed on both occasions with His Majesty.”

Buckingham Palace said on Friday that the king met with Andrew and his adviser to hear “outline proposals” for independent funding. Yang was never mentioned.

Andrew, one of the king’s younger brothers, has been repeatedly criticized for his links to wealthy foreigners, raising concerns that those individuals were trying to buy access to the royal family.

Hampshire’s statement was initially kept private, but the commission released it after appeals by news organizations that argued it was in the public interest.

Hampshire, who left Andrew’s service in 2022, said he sought to keep his statement out of the public domain to protect confidential communications with the security services and Buckingham Palace.

What the duke says

Andrew previously said he accepted government advice and ceased all contact with the Chinese national as soon as the concerns were raised.

“The Duke met the individual through official channels with nothing of a sensitive nature ever discussed,” his office said in December. “He is unable to comment further on matters relating to national security.”

British intelligence chiefs have become increasingly concerned about China’s efforts to influence U.K. government policy.

In 2022, Britain’s domestic intelligence service, known as MI5, warned politicians that a British-Chinese lawyer had been seeking to improperly influence members of Parliament for years. A parliamentary researcher was arrested in 2023 on suspicion of providing sensitive information to China.

Yang, 51, worked as a junior civil servant in China before he came to the U.K. as a student in 2002. He earned a master’s degree in public administration and public policy at the University of York before starting a business that advises U.K.-based companies on their operations in China.

He was granted the right to live and work in the U.K. for an indefinite period in 2013. Although he didn’t make Britain his permanent home, Yang told authorities that he spent one to two weeks a month in the country and considered it his “second home.”

Yang was stopped while entering the U.K. on Nov. 6, 2021, and ordered to surrender his mobile phone and other digital devices on which authorities found a letter from Hampshire and other documents that highlighted his close relationship with Andrew.

“I also hope that it is clear to you where you sit with my principal and indeed his family,” Hampshire said in excerpts from the letter released previously. “You should never underestimate the strength of that relationship. Outside of his closest internal confidants, you sit at the very top of a tree that many, many people would like to be on.”

In the witness statement released on Friday, Hampshire characterized those comments as “artistic license.”

“As is regularly the case in some communications, there was significant artistic license in ‘blowing smoke’ and stroking his ego to maintain (Yang’s) support of the duke,” Hampshire said.

Find more of AP’s coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/royalty

By MARCIA DUNN

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — Four space tourists who orbited the north and south poles returned to Earth on Friday, splashing down in the Pacific to end their privately funded polar tour.

Bitcoin investor Chun Wang chartered a SpaceX flight for himself and three others in a Dragon capsule that was outfitted with a domed window that provided 360-degree views of the polar caps and everything in between. Wang declined to say how much he paid for the 3 1/2-day trip.

The quartet, who rocketed from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center on Monday night, returned off the Southern California coast. It was the first human spaceflight to circle the globe above the poles and the first Pacific splashdown for a space crew in 50 years.

The Chinese-born Wang, now a citizen of Malta, invited Norwegian filmmaker Jannicke Mikkelsen, German robotics researcher Rabea Rogge and Australian polar guide Eric Philips, all of whom shared stunning vistas during their voyage.

“It is so epic because it is another kind of desert, so it just goes on and on and on all the way,” Rogge said in a video posted by Wang on X while gazing down from orbit.

Mikkelsen packed the capsule with camera equipment and spent much of her time behind the lens.

All four suffered from space motion sickness after reaching orbit, according to Wang. But by the time they woke up on day two, they felt fine and cranked open the window cover right above the South Pole, he said via X.

Besides documenting the poles from 270 miles up, Wang and his crew took the first medical X-rays in space as part of a test and conducted two dozen other science experiments. They named their trip Fram2 after the Norwegian sailing ship that carried explorers to the poles more than a century ago. A bit of the original ship’s wooden deck accompanied the crew to space.

Their medical tests continued at splashdown. All four got out of the capsule on their own, heaving bags of equipment so researchers could see how steady returning space crews are on their feet. They pumped their fists in jubilation.

SpaceX said its decision to switch splashdown sites from Florida beginning with this flight was based on safety. The company said Pacific splashdowns will ensure that any surviving pieces of the trunk — jettisoned near flight’s end — falls into the ocean.

The last people to return from space to the Pacific were the three NASA astronauts assigned to the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting the legal community pose “a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself,” according to a court filing submitted Friday by more than 500 law firms.

Related Articles

Supreme Court allows Trump administration to cut teacher-training money, for now

Congress has the power to halt Trump’s tariffs. But Republicans aren’t ready to use it

Judge moves legal case of detained Turkish Tufts University student to Vermont

Trump holds off on TikTok ban after he almost closed deal with ByteDance, AP Source says

Senate takes up a budget plan crafted by Republicans to advance Trump’s agenda

The brief represents the most organized pushback to date against a series of White House executive orders that have sought to punish some of the country’s most elite firms and to extract concessions from them. Some of the targeted firms have sued to halt enforcement of the orders, while others have struck deals with the White House either to avert an order or to have it rescinded.

The filing was submitted as part of a lawsuit filed by Perkins Coie, which is among the firms that have challenged the orders in court. The order against that firm and others demands that security clearances of its lawyers be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that employee access to federal buildings be restricted.

The firm won a court order temporarily blocking enforcement of several provisions of the executive order, but its court case is still pending.

On Friday, more than 500 firms and law offices from around the country signed onto a brief urging a judge to permanently block the order. The firms, in their filing, call the order a “grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself.”

“The looming threat posed by the Executive Order at issue in this case and the others like it is not lost on anyone practicing law in this country today: any controversial representation challenging actions of the current administration (or even causes it disfavors) now brings with it the risk of devastating retaliation,” the brief argues.

It adds: “Whatever short-term advantage an administration may gain from exercising power in this way, the rule of law cannot long endure in the climate of fear that such actions create. Our adversarial system depends upon zealous advocates litigating each side of a case with equal vigor; that is how impartial judges arrive at just, informed decisions that vindicate the rule of law.”

Last month, Paul Weiss became the first firm to cut a deal with the White House, agreeing to dedicate $40 million in pro bono legal services to causes championed by the Trump administration and to ensure merit-based hiring instead of relying on diversity, equity and inclusion considerations in its employment practices. In exchange, the White House rescinded an executive order issued days earlier.

Since then, the law firms of Millbank and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have reached similar agreements to avoid being hit with an executive order.

Several of the targeted firms have been subject to orders, in part, because of their prior or current associations with lawyers who either investigated Trump or are among the president’s perceived adversaries.