VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis elevated 20 more churchmen to the rank of cardinal on Saturday, formally expanding those now eligible to vote for his successor in case he dies or resigns — the latter a step he has said he’d consider if the need arises.

Of the churchmen being named new cardinals in the consistory ceremony in St. Peter's Basilica, 16 are younger than 80 and thus eligible to participate in a conclave — the ritual-shrouded, locked-door assembly of cardinals who cast paper ballots to elect a new pontiff.

The 85-year-old Francis has now named 83 of the 132 cardinals currently young enough to join a conclave. The others were appointed by the previous two popes, St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, whose unexpected retirement in 2013 paved the way for Francis to be elected.

With the eight batches of cardinals Francis has named, prospects are boosted that whoever becomes the next pontiff will share his vision for the future of the church.

Francis reminded the cardinals of their mission, which he said includes “an openness to all peoples, to the horizons of the world, to the peripheries as yet unknown.”

Underlining Francis' attention to those on society's margins, among the new cardinals is Archbishop Anthony Poola of Hyderabad, India. The prelate, 60, is the first member of the Dalit community, considered the lowest rung of India's caste system, to become a cardinal.

One by one, the newest cardinals, whose red cassocks and headgear symbolizes the blood they must be prepared to shed if necessary in their mission, knelt before Francis, who placed on their head the prestigious biretta, as the three-peaked hat is known.

That intimate moment was a chance to exchange a few words with Francis, who smiled to put them at ease. At times, the seated Francis, himself hobbled by mobility problems, lent his own arms to help kneeling cardinals stand up.

In choosing San Diego Bishop Robert Walter McElroy, Francis passed over U.S. churchmen leading traditionally more prestigious dioceses, including San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone.

McElroy has been among a minority of American bishops who opposed to a campaign to deny Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. Cordileone has said he'd no long allow U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to receive Communion for her defense of abortion rights.

While staunchly against abortion as a grave sin, Francis has also decried what he calls the weaponization of Communion.

McElroy last year was also among a small group of U.S. bishops signing a statement denouncing the bullying that is often directed at LGBTQ youth.

Francis has tried to make gay Catholics feel welcome in the church, whose teaching holds that same-sex intercourse is a sin.

Among the newest cardinals is Bishop Richard Kuuia Baawobr from Wa, Ghana, who has spoken out against LGBTQ rights. The African prelate felt ill when he arrived in Rome on Friday and was hospitalized for a heart problem, the pope told the other cardinals, asking them to pray “for this brother who should have been here.”

Asked by The Associated Press about such contrasting views among church leaders, McElroy replied that “there are always cultural differences within the life of the church as there is within in the human family. And different cultures approach these questions in different ways.”

McElroy added: "My own view is that we have an obligation in the church to make the LGBT persons feel equally welcome in the life of the church, as everyone else.”

With electing future pontiffs a key role for cardinals, McElroy, 68, was asked what he thought of Francis' saying that resignation for popes is a valid option.

“In principle, I think it is a good idea at a particular moment when they feel they can no longer carry the burdens of that office, but I think this pope is far from that moment," the U.S. prelate said. “I believe he sees himself as far from that moment. What he has is a mobility issue, but it has not affected his mind. I can tell you he is still on top of things."

Archbishop Ulrich Steiner of Manaus, Brazil, became the first cardinal from the Amazon, the vast, environmentally-vulnerable region in South America on the Argentine-born pontiff’s home continent. In remarks to The AP, Steiner expressed concern about increasing violence in the Amazon.

“But this violence was not born there, it came from outside,'' Steiner, 71, said. ”It is always violence related to money. Concessions, deforestation, also with the mines, also with the fishing."

At 48, the youngest member among the cardinals' ranks is an Italian missionary in Mongolia, where Catholics number some 1,300. Francis "knows how important it is supporting these little communities,'' said the new cardinal, Giorgio Marengo.

Originally, the pope had picked 21 new cardinals. But retired Belgian Bishop Luc Van Looy declined the honor, citing his own inadequate handling of cases of sexually abusive priests while he led the Ghent diocese from 2004-2020.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/8/1661652969163.png" alt="Pope Francis prays in front of new Cardinals during consistory inside St. Peter's Basilica, at the Vatican, Saturday, Aug. 27, 2022. Pope Francis has chosen 20 men to become the Catholic Church's newest cardinals. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)" />
 <figcaption>Pope Francis prays in front of new Cardinals during consistory inside St. Peter's Basilica, at the Vatican, Saturday, Aug. 27, 2022. Pope Francis has chosen 20 men to become the Catholic Church's newest cardinals. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)</figcaption>
 </figure>VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis elevated 20 more churchmen to the rank of cardinal on Saturday, formally expanding those now eligible to vote for his successor in case he dies or resigns — the latter a step he has said he’d consider if the need arises.Of the churchmen being named new cardinals in the consistory ceremony in St. Peter's Basilica, 16 are younger than 80 and thus eligible to participate in a conclave — the ritual-shrouded, locked-door assembly of cardinals who cast paper ballots to elect a new pontiff.The 85-year-old Francis has now named 83 of the 132 cardinals currently young enough to join a conclave. The others were appointed by the previous two popes, St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, whose unexpected retirement in 2013 paved the way for Francis to be elected.With the eight batches of cardinals Francis has named, prospects are boosted that whoever becomes the next pontiff will share his vision for the future of the church.Francis reminded the cardinals of their mission, which he said includes “an openness to all peoples, to the horizons of the world, to the peripheries as yet unknown.”Underlining Francis' attention to those on society's margins, among the new cardinals is Archbishop Anthony Poola of Hyderabad, India. The prelate, 60, is the first member of the Dalit community, considered the lowest rung of India's caste system, to become a cardinal.One by one, the newest cardinals, whose red cassocks and headgear symbolizes the blood they must be prepared to shed if necessary in their mission, knelt before Francis, who placed on their head the prestigious biretta, as the three-peaked hat is known.That intimate moment was a chance to exchange a few words with Francis, who smiled to put them at ease. At times, the seated Francis, himself hobbled by mobility problems, lent his own arms to help kneeling cardinals stand up.In choosing San Diego Bishop Robert Walter McElroy, Francis passed over U.S. churchmen leading traditionally more prestigious dioceses, including San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone.McElroy has been among a minority of American bishops who opposed to a campaign to deny Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. Cordileone has said he'd no long allow U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to receive Communion for her defense of abortion rights.While staunchly against abortion as a grave sin, Francis has also decried what he calls the weaponization of Communion.McElroy last year was also among a small group of U.S. bishops signing a statement denouncing the bullying that is often directed at LGBTQ youth.Francis has tried to make gay Catholics feel welcome in the church, whose teaching holds that same-sex intercourse is a sin.Among the newest cardinals is Bishop Richard Kuuia Baawobr from Wa, Ghana, who has spoken out against LGBTQ rights. The African prelate felt ill when he arrived in Rome on Friday and was hospitalized for a heart problem, the pope told the other cardinals, asking them to pray “for this brother who should have been here.”Asked by The Associated Press about such contrasting views among church leaders, McElroy replied that “there are always cultural differences within the life of the church as there is within in the human family. And different cultures approach these questions in different ways.”McElroy added: "My own view is that we have an obligation in the church to make the LGBT persons feel equally welcome in the life of the church, as everyone else.”With electing future pontiffs a key role for cardinals, McElroy, 68, was asked what he thought of Francis' saying that resignation for popes is a valid option.“In principle, I think it is a good idea at a particular moment when they feel they can no longer carry the burdens of that office, but I think this pope is far from that moment," the U.S. prelate said. “I believe he sees himself as far from that moment. What he has is a mobility issue, but it has not affected his mind. I can tell you he is still on top of things."Archbishop Ulrich Steiner of Manaus, Brazil, became the first cardinal from the Amazon, the vast, environmentally-vulnerable region in South America on the Argentine-born pontiff’s home continent. In remarks to The AP, Steiner expressed concern about increasing violence in the Amazon.“But this violence was not born there, it came from outside,'' Steiner, 71, said. ”It is always violence related to money. Concessions, deforestation, also with the mines, also with the fishing."At 48, the youngest member among the cardinals' ranks is an Italian missionary in Mongolia, where Catholics number some 1,300. Francis "knows how important it is supporting these little communities,'' said the new cardinal, Giorgio Marengo.Originally, the pope had picked 21 new cardinals. But retired Belgian Bishop Luc Van Looy declined the honor, citing his own inadequate handling of cases of sexually abusive priests while he led the Ghent diocese from 2004-2020.___

Pope expands ranks of cardinals who'll likely pick successor

By GARETH DORRIAN <a href="https://theconversation.com/artemis-1-maiden-flight-of-spacecraft-set-to-take-humans-back-to-the-moon-heres-what-needs-to-go-right-189081">The Conversation</a>

A launch window – the period during which a rocket must be launched 
to reach its destination – opens on August 29 for the first flight to 
the Moon since 1972 by a spacecraft designed to carry humans there. If 
all goes well, the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/">Artemis project</a> will be on track to meet its goal of putting humans back on the Moon in 2025.

Project Artemis, the namesake of the sister of Apollo and daughter of
 Zeus in ancient Greek mythology, is designed to establish a long-term 
human presence on our nearest celestial neighbour, and to ultimately 
explore even further afield. <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-1">Artemis 1</a> is the first of several missions. It consists of Nasa’s new super-heavy rocket, the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html">Space Launch System (SLS)</a>, which has never been launched before, and the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/orion/about/index.html">Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (or Orion MPCV)</a>, which has only flown in space once.

Unlike the <a href="https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/112/apollo-11-command-and-service-modules/">Command Service Modules of the Apollo missions</a>,
 which were powered by hydrogen fuel cells, the Orion MPCV is a 
solar-powered craft. Its distinctive X-wing style solar arrays can be 
swept forward or backward to reduce stress on the probe during 
high-thrust manoeuvres. It is capable of carrying six astronauts for up 
to 21 days in space. The imminent, uncrewed <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-1">Artemis 1</a> mission, however, may last as long as 42 days.

Also unlike Apollo, Artemis is an international project. The Orion MPCV consists of a US-built capsule for the astronauts and a <a href="https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Keywords/System/Orion_MPCV/(result_type)/videos">European-built</a> service module containing supplies of fuel, water, air, solar-arrays and rocket thrusters.

The reliance on the Sun for power places some restrictions on when 
Artemis-1 can launch as the geometry of the Earth and Moon have to be 
such that the Orion spacecraft is not in shadow from the Sun for over 90
 minutes at any point during the flight. The earliest launch window 
opens at 08.33 EST on August 29, with further windows on September 2 and
 5. 

The SLS will put Orion into Earth orbit, where its core stage will be
 discarded – dropped into the ocean. Most of the energy required to fly a
 spacecraft to the Moon is used in this first phase of the flight, just 
to reach low-Earth orbit. Orion will then be pushed out of Earth orbit 
and onto a lunar-bound trajectory by the second stage of the SLS, called
 the interim cryogenic propulsion stage (<a href="https://www.ulalaunch.com/interim-cryogenic-propulsion-stage-(icps)">ICPS</a>).

Orion will then separate from the ICPS and spend the next several 
days coasting to the Moon. The launch is typically one of the riskiest 
parts of any spaceflight, especially for a new rocket. If Artemis-1 
successfully reaches Earth orbit it will be a significant milestone for 
the project. 

During the mission, Orion will also deploy <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/launching-science-and-technology-on-nasa-s-artemis-i-mission.html">ten mini satellites</a>
 known as CubeSats. One of these, BioSentinel, will contain yeast to 
observe how the microgravity and radiation environment on the Moon 
affect the growth of microorganisms. Another, NEA Scout, will deploy a 
solar sail and then fly to a nearby asteroid for a close-up examination.
 Meanwhile, IceCube will orbit the Moon and search for ice deposits on 
or near the surface, which may be used by future astronauts.

Entry into lunar orbit will occur just 60 miles above the lunar 
surface. Orion will fire its onboard thrusters to slow the spacecraft 
and allow the Moon’s gravity to capture it into orbit. It will orbit the
 Moon in an unusual, distant retrograde orbit – in the opposite 
direction to the Moon’s spin. This particular orbit was originally 
chosen to flight test Orion as part of a now-cancelled <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/content/what-is-nasa-s-asteroid-redirect-mission">mission to learn to redirect asteroids</a>.

During this phase, Orion will travel up to 70,000 km from the Moon 
and reach the furthest distance from Earth ever for a human-capable 
spacecraft. If astronauts were onboard, they would have a grand view of 
the distant Earth and the Moon. 

Orion will spend between six and 23 days in lunar orbit, after which 
it will fire its onboard thrusters once again to accelerate out of lunar
 orbit and place itself on a return to Earth trajectory. 

The surface of the Moon can reach 120°C during the day and drop to 
-170°C at night. Such large temperature changes can cause significant 
thermal expansion and contraction of materials, so the Orion spacecraft 
had to be built with materials able to withstand significant thermal 
stress without failing. One goal of the mission is to check this, and 
crucially, ensure that the breathable atmosphere inside the capsule is 
maintained throughout.

At the distances of the Moon, astronauts would also be outside of the
 Earth’s magnetic field, which normally protects us from cosmic 
radiation. Deep <a href="https://srag.jsc.nasa.gov/SpaceRadiation/What/What.cfm">space radiation</a>
 is a serious concern for any future human missions to the Moon. The 
longest Apollo mission (Apollo 17) lasted 12 and a half days – Orion 
will be in deep space for three to four times as long. Engineers will, 
therefore, also keep a close eye on the radiation environment inside the
 capsule.

On returning to Earth, the Orion crew capsule will separate from the 
service module, which will be discarded, and then enter the atmosphere 
protected by its heat shield. It will descend and deploy parachutes to 
land at sea. In fact, this is the most crucial part of the mission: to 
ensure that the capsule can survive the high re-entry speeds of a 
spacecraft returning from the Moon and then make a safe landing. To do 
so, the heat shield must endure temperatures of 2,750°C while Orion 
decelerates from 24,500 miles per hour – that’s significantly hotter 
than the temperatures encountered when spacecraft return from low-Earth 
orbit.

Assuming a successful launch on August 29, the splashdown would be on Oct. 10.

Artemis-2, currently slated for launch in 2024, will carry four 
astronauts on a lunar flyby some 9,000km above the Moon’s surface. The 
astronauts on Artemis-2 will become the record holders for the greatest 
distance from Earth ever reached by humans. 

Nasa has also just announced a <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-identifies-candidate-regions-for-landing-next-americans-on-moon">short list</a>
 of landing sites near the Moon’s South Pole for the first lunar landing
 mission, Artemis-3, aiming to land humans there in 2025. Whether they 
reach that goal will ultimately depend on how things go for Artemis-1.

Gareth Dorrian is a Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Space Science at the University of Birmingham.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/8/1661535588535.png" alt=" Artist’s impression of Orion at the Moon. NASA/Liam Yanulis " />
 <figcaption> Artist’s impression of Orion at the Moon. NASA/Liam Yanulis </figcaption>
 </figure>By GARETH DORRIAN <a href="https://theconversation.com/artemis-1-maiden-flight-of-spacecraft-set-to-take-humans-back-to-the-moon-heres-what-needs-to-go-right-189081">The Conversation</a>A launch window – the period during which a rocket must be launched 
to reach its destination – opens on August 29 for the first flight to 
the Moon since 1972 by a spacecraft designed to carry humans there. If 
all goes well, the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/">Artemis project</a> will be on track to meet its goal of putting humans back on the Moon in 2025.Project Artemis, the namesake of the sister of Apollo and daughter of
 Zeus in ancient Greek mythology, is designed to establish a long-term 
human presence on our nearest celestial neighbour, and to ultimately 
explore even further afield. <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-1">Artemis 1</a> is the first of several missions. It consists of Nasa’s new super-heavy rocket, the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html">Space Launch System (SLS)</a>, which has never been launched before, and the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/orion/about/index.html">Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (or Orion MPCV)</a>, which has only flown in space once.Unlike the <a href="https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/112/apollo-11-command-and-service-modules/">Command Service Modules of the Apollo missions</a>,
 which were powered by hydrogen fuel cells, the Orion MPCV is a 
solar-powered craft. Its distinctive X-wing style solar arrays can be 
swept forward or backward to reduce stress on the probe during 
high-thrust manoeuvres. It is capable of carrying six astronauts for up 
to 21 days in space. The imminent, uncrewed <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-1">Artemis 1</a> mission, however, may last as long as 42 days.Also unlike Apollo, Artemis is an international project. The Orion MPCV consists of a US-built capsule for the astronauts and a <a href="https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Keywords/System/Orion_MPCV/(result_type)/videos">European-built</a> service module containing supplies of fuel, water, air, solar-arrays and rocket thrusters.The reliance on the Sun for power places some restrictions on when 
Artemis-1 can launch as the geometry of the Earth and Moon have to be 
such that the Orion spacecraft is not in shadow from the Sun for over 90
 minutes at any point during the flight. The earliest launch window 
opens at 08.33 EST on August 29, with further windows on September 2 and
 5. <h2>Pioneering flight</h2>The SLS will put Orion into Earth orbit, where its core stage will be
 discarded – dropped into the ocean. Most of the energy required to fly a
 spacecraft to the Moon is used in this first phase of the flight, just 
to reach low-Earth orbit. Orion will then be pushed out of Earth orbit 
and onto a lunar-bound trajectory by the second stage of the SLS, called
 the interim cryogenic propulsion stage (<a href="https://www.ulalaunch.com/interim-cryogenic-propulsion-stage-(icps)">ICPS</a>). Orion will then separate from the ICPS and spend the next several 
days coasting to the Moon. The launch is typically one of the riskiest 
parts of any spaceflight, especially for a new rocket. If Artemis-1 
successfully reaches Earth orbit it will be a significant milestone for 
the project. During the mission, Orion will also deploy <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/launching-science-and-technology-on-nasa-s-artemis-i-mission.html">ten mini satellites</a>
 known as CubeSats. One of these, BioSentinel, will contain yeast to 
observe how the microgravity and radiation environment on the Moon 
affect the growth of microorganisms. Another, NEA Scout, will deploy a 
solar sail and then fly to a nearby asteroid for a close-up examination.
 Meanwhile, IceCube will orbit the Moon and search for ice deposits on 
or near the surface, which may be used by future astronauts. <figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/8/1661535556252.png" alt=" Artist’s concept of Artemis-1 upper stage separation. NASA/Liam Yanulis " />
 <figcaption> Artist’s concept of Artemis-1 upper stage separation. NASA/Liam Yanulis </figcaption>
 </figure>Entry into lunar orbit will occur just 60 miles above the lunar 
surface. Orion will fire its onboard thrusters to slow the spacecraft 
and allow the Moon’s gravity to capture it into orbit. It will orbit the
 Moon in an unusual, distant retrograde orbit – in the opposite 
direction to the Moon’s spin. This particular orbit was originally 
chosen to flight test Orion as part of a now-cancelled <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/content/what-is-nasa-s-asteroid-redirect-mission">mission to learn to redirect asteroids</a>. During this phase, Orion will travel up to 70,000 km from the Moon 
and reach the furthest distance from Earth ever for a human-capable 
spacecraft. If astronauts were onboard, they would have a grand view of 
the distant Earth and the Moon. Orion will spend between six and 23 days in lunar orbit, after which 
it will fire its onboard thrusters once again to accelerate out of lunar
 orbit and place itself on a return to Earth trajectory. The surface of the Moon can reach 120°C during the day and drop to 
-170°C at night. Such large temperature changes can cause significant 
thermal expansion and contraction of materials, so the Orion spacecraft 
had to be built with materials able to withstand significant thermal 
stress without failing. One goal of the mission is to check this, and 
crucially, ensure that the breathable atmosphere inside the capsule is 
maintained throughout.At the distances of the Moon, astronauts would also be outside of the
 Earth’s magnetic field, which normally protects us from cosmic 
radiation. Deep <a href="https://srag.jsc.nasa.gov/SpaceRadiation/What/What.cfm">space radiation</a>
 is a serious concern for any future human missions to the Moon. The 
longest Apollo mission (Apollo 17) lasted 12 and a half days – Orion 
will be in deep space for three to four times as long. Engineers will, 
therefore, also keep a close eye on the radiation environment inside the
 capsule.On returning to Earth, the Orion crew capsule will separate from the 
service module, which will be discarded, and then enter the atmosphere 
protected by its heat shield. It will descend and deploy parachutes to 
land at sea. In fact, this is the most crucial part of the mission: to 
ensure that the capsule can survive the high re-entry speeds of a 
spacecraft returning from the Moon and then make a safe landing. To do 
so, the heat shield must endure temperatures of 2,750°C while Orion 
decelerates from 24,500 miles per hour – that’s significantly hotter 
than the temperatures encountered when spacecraft return from low-Earth 
orbit.Assuming a successful launch on August 29, the splashdown would be on Oct. 10.Artemis-2, currently slated for launch in 2024, will carry four 
astronauts on a lunar flyby some 9,000km above the Moon’s surface. The 
astronauts on Artemis-2 will become the record holders for the greatest 
distance from Earth ever reached by humans. Nasa has also just announced a <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-identifies-candidate-regions-for-landing-next-americans-on-moon">short list</a>
 of landing sites near the Moon’s South Pole for the first lunar landing
 mission, Artemis-3, aiming to land humans there in 2025. Whether they 
reach that goal will ultimately depend on how things go for Artemis-1.Gareth Dorrian is a Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Space Science at the University of Birmingham.<div><iframe src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189081/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" width="1" height="1"></iframe></div>

Back to the moon? Here's what needs to go right for NASA rocket

KANSAS CITY (AP) —The online reviews site Yelp said this week it is rolling out a new feature to protect users seeking abortions from being misled about anti-abortion pregnancy centers listed on its platform.

Such centers are typically religiously affiliated and deter clients from having an abortion. On Tuesday, Yelp said it will place a consumer notice on the listings informing users that the centers “typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite.”

In 2018, moderators for the San Francisco-based company began recategorizing listings for such organizations as “crisis pregnancy centers” or “faith-based crisis pregnancy centers.” The organizations had previously categorized themselves as reproductive health services, medical centers and other health and medical categories.

“It’s well-reported that crisis pregnancy centers do not offer abortion services, and it’s been shown that many provide misleading information in an attempt to steer people seeking abortion care to other options,” the company said in a post on its website detailing the change.

Yelp’s move might put more pressure on Google to do something similar with listings on its site. Last week, hundreds of Google employees&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-technology-data-privacy-6ca91a6261f552fef9d7b119104d5fe1">released a petition</a>&nbsp;calling on the company to fix misleading search results for abortion services by removing “fake abortion providers” and halt its business with “publishers of disinformation related to abortion services.”

In June, Democratic lawmakers in Congress also urged the company to curb the appearance of the anti-abortion pregnancy centers for certain search results. But Republicans pushed back last month, warning the tech giant not to do so&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-technology-health-religion-061129531d9c180c290945997a10c9ca">in a letter sent by 17 conservative attorney generals</a>&nbsp;to Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

Google did not immediately reply to a request for comment on Tuesday.

In the past several months, Yelp said it has also been picking up on efforts to better match users searching for abortion clinics with those services and make it less likely those users will see anti-abortion pregnancy centers in search results. The company said it has evaluated roughly 33,500 listings this year and recategorized nearly 470 pages for the centers.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/6/1656360664076.png" alt="Alliance for Life offices in the Kansas City suburb of Lee's Summit-Google image" />
 <figcaption>Alliance for Life offices in the Kansas City suburb of Lee's Summit-Google image</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY (AP) —The online reviews site Yelp said this week it is rolling out a new feature to protect users seeking abortions from being misled about anti-abortion pregnancy centers listed on its platform.Such centers are typically religiously affiliated and deter clients from having an abortion. On Tuesday, Yelp said it will place a consumer notice on the listings informing users that the centers “typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite.”In 2018, moderators for the San Francisco-based company began recategorizing listings for such organizations as “crisis pregnancy centers” or “faith-based crisis pregnancy centers.” The organizations had previously categorized themselves as reproductive health services, medical centers and other health and medical categories.“It’s well-reported that crisis pregnancy centers do not offer abortion services, and it’s been shown that many provide misleading information in an attempt to steer people seeking abortion care to other options,” the company said in a post on its website detailing the change.Yelp’s move might put more pressure on Google to do something similar with listings on its site. Last week, hundreds of Google employees&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-technology-data-privacy-6ca91a6261f552fef9d7b119104d5fe1">released a petition</a>&nbsp;calling on the company to fix misleading search results for abortion services by removing “fake abortion providers” and halt its business with “publishers of disinformation related to abortion services.”In June, Democratic lawmakers in Congress also urged the company to curb the appearance of the anti-abortion pregnancy centers for certain search results. But Republicans pushed back last month, warning the tech giant not to do so&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-technology-health-religion-061129531d9c180c290945997a10c9ca">in a letter sent by 17 conservative attorney generals</a>&nbsp;to Google CEO Sundar Pichai.Google did not immediately reply to a request for comment on Tuesday.In the past several months, Yelp said it has also been picking up on efforts to better match users searching for abortion clinics with those services and make it less likely those users will see anti-abortion pregnancy centers in search results. The company said it has evaluated roughly 33,500 listings this year and recategorized nearly 470 pages for the centers.

Yelp to add more flags to anti-abortion pregnancy centers

By NAJMEDIN MESHKATI <a href="https://theconversation.com/imperiled-ukrainian-nuclear-power-plant-has-the-world-on-edge-a-safety-expert-explains-what-could-go-wrong-189429">The Conversation</a>

Russian forces occupy Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, the 
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station in the Ukrainian city of Enerhodar. 
Russian and Ukrainian forces are fighting nearby, and shelling has <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-93-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine">damaged power and communication lines to the plant</a>, prompting <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-nuclear-plant-escapes-meltdown-zelenskiy-says-moscow-kyiv-trade-blame-2022-08-25/">fears for the plant’s safety</a> and evoking painful memories in a country still scarred by the world’s worst nuclear accident, at Chernobyl in 1986.

In addition, Russian authorities have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/24/revealed-russian-plan-to-disconnect-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-from-grid">developed plans to disconnect the plant</a>
 from Ukraine’s power grid – in the event of damage to the plant, 
according to the Russians, as a prelude to switching the plant to the 
grid in Russian-occupied territory, according to the Ukrainians. 
Disconnecting the plant from the grid is a risky operation.

The Conversation asked <a href="https://sites.usc.edu/meshkati/">Najmedin Meshkati</a>, a professor and <a href="https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/thirty-three-years-catastrophe-chernobyl-universal-lesson-global-nuclear-power-industry">nuclear safety expert</a> at the University of Southern California, to explain the risks of warfare taking place in and around nuclear power plants.

How safe was the Zaporizhzhia power plant before the Russian attack?

The facility at Zaporizhzhia is the largest nuclear plant in Europe and one of the largest in the world. It has six <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/pwrs.html">pressurized water reactors</a>, which use water to both sustain the fission reaction and cool the reactor. These differ from the <a href="https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx">RBMK</a>
 reactors at Chernobyl, which used graphite instead of water to sustain 
the fission reaction. RBMK reactors are not seen as very safe, and there
 are <a href="https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx">only eight remaining in use</a> in the world, all in Russia.

The reactors at Zaporizhzhia are of moderately good design, and the 
plant has a decent safety record, with a good operating background.

Ukrainian authorities tried to keep the war away from the site by 
asking Russia to observe a 30-kilometer (nearly 19-mile) safety buffer. 
But Russian troops surrounded the facility and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/04/zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant-everything-you-need-to-know">seized it in March</a>.

What are the risks to a nuclear plant in a conflict zone?

Nuclear power plants are built for peacetime operations, not wars.

The worst thing that could happen is if a site is deliberately or accidentally shelled. If a shell hit the plant’s <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/pools.html">spent fuel pool</a>
 – which contains the still-radioactive spent fuel – or if fire spread 
to the spent fuel pool, it could release radiation. This spent fuel pool
 isn’t in the containment building, and as such is more vulnerable.

Containment buildings, which house nuclear reactors, are also not 
protected against deliberate shelling. They are built to withstand a 
minor internal explosion of, say, a pressurized water pipe. But they are
 not designed to withstand a huge explosion.

As to the reactors in the containment building, it depends on the 
weapons being used. The worst-case scenario is that a bunker-buster 
missile breaches the containment dome – consisting of a thick shell of 
reinforced concrete on top of the reactor – and explodes. That would 
badly damage the nuclear reactor and release radiation into the 
atmosphere, which would make it difficult to send in first responders to
 contain any resulting fire. It could be another Chernobyl.

The workers at the facility are working under incredible stress, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/23/world/europe/ukraine-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant.html">reportedly at gunpoint</a>. Stress increases the chance of error and poor performance.

There is a human element in running a nuclear power plant – operators
 are the first and last layers of defense for the facility and the 
public. They are the first people to detect any anomaly and to stop any 
incident. Or if there’s an accident, they will be the first to 
heroically try to contain it. 

The second problem is that the nuclear plant needs constant electricity, and that is harder to maintain in wartime.

Even if you shut down the reactors, the plant will need off-site 
power to run the huge cooling system to remove the residual heat in the 
reactor and bring it to what is called a <a href="http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-is-cold-shutdown.html">cold shutdown</a>. Water circulation is always needed to make sure the spent fuel doesn’t overheat.

Spent fuel pools also need constant water circulation to keep them 
cool, and they need cooling for several years before they can be put in 
dry casks. One of the problems in the 2011 <a href="https://theconversation.com/10-years-after-fukushima-safety-is-still-nuclear-powers-greatest-challenge-155541">Fukushima disaster</a>
 in Japan was the emergency generators intended to replace lost off-site
 power got inundated with water and failed. In situations like that, you
 get “<a href="https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/nuclear-station-blackout/">station blackout</a>” – and that is one of the worst things that could happen. It means no electricity to run the cooling system.

In that circumstance, the spent fuel overheats and its zirconium 
cladding can create hydrogen bubbles. If you can’t vent these bubbles, 
they will explode, spreading radiation.

If there is a loss of outside power, operators will have to rely on 
emergency generators. But emergency generators are huge machines – 
finicky, unreliable gas guzzlers. And you still need cooling waters for 
the generators themselves. 

My biggest worry is that Ukraine suffers from a sustained power grid 
failure. The likelihood of this increases during a conflict because 
power line pylons may come down under shelling, or gas power plants 
might get damaged and cease to operate. And though Ukrainian 
intelligence services <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-russia-plans-disconnect-nuclear-plants-blocks-grid-2022-08-19/">claim that the Russians intend to stockpile diesel fuel</a>
 to keep these emergency generators going, it is unlikely that Russian 
troops will have excess fuel given their need to fuel their own 
vehicles.

How else does a war affect the safety of nuclear plants?

One of the overarching concerns about the effects of war on nuclear plants is that war degrades <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK253947/">safety culture</a>,
 which is crucial in running a plant. I believe that safety culture is 
analogous to the human body’s immune system, which protects against 
pathogens and diseases. Safety culture is pervasive and has a widespread
 impact. “It can affect all elements in a system for good or ill,” <a href="https://www.safetymattersblog.com/2014/11/a-life-in-error-by-james-reason.html">according to</a> <a href="https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/jim-reason-FBA/">psychologist James Reason</a>.

The tragic situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant violates every universally accepted tenet of <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1500/ML15007A487.pdf">healthy nuclear safety culture</a>, especially the maintenance of an environment where personnel can raise safety concerns.

War adversely affects safety culture in a number of ways. Operators 
are stressed and fatigued and may be scared to death to speak out if 
something is going wrong. Then there is the maintenance of a plant, 
which may be compromised by lack of staff or unavailability of spare 
parts. 

Governance, regulation and oversight – all crucial for the safe 
running of a nuclear industry – are also disrupted, as is local 
infrastructure, such as the capability of local firefighters. In war, 
everything is harder.

So what can be done to better protect Ukraine’s nuclear power plants?

The only solution is declaring a demilitarized zone around nuclear 
plants. However, Russia has so far rejected United Nations Secretary 
General António Guterres’ <a href="https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc15003.doc.htm">plea for declaring a demilitarized zone around the plant</a>.

I believe an optimal though not ideal solution is to bring the two 
operating reactors to a cold shutdown before any further loss of 
off-site power and risk of station blackout, store more fuel for 
emergency diesel generators at different locations at the plant site, 
and keep only a skeleton caretaker staff to look after the spent fuel 
pools.

Admittedly, this is only a stopgap measure. In parallel with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency’s effort under the leadership of its 
Director, General Rafael Mariano Grossi, I believe that the U.N. 
Security Council should immediately empower a special commission to 
mediate between the warring parties. It could be modeled after the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Monitoring-Verification-and-Inspection-Commission">United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission</a> in 2000, and appoint a prominent, senior international statesman as its head.

I believe the person should be of the caliber and in the mold of the legendary former director general of the IAEA, <a href="https://worldleaders.columbia.edu/directory/hans-blix">Hans Blix</a>
 of Sweden. Blix led the agency at the time of the Chernobyl accident in
 1986 and commands respect in today’s Russia and Ukraine.

War, in my opinion, is the worst enemy of nuclear safety. This is an 
unprecedented and volatile situation. Only through active, pragmatic <a href="https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/sites/default/files/engineering_diplomacy_science__diplomacy.pdf">engineering and nuclear diplomacy</a> can an amenable and lasting solution to this vexing problem be found.

Najmedin Meshkati is a Professor of Engineering and International Relations, University of Southern California.

By NAJMEDIN MESHKATI <a href="https://theconversation.com/imperiled-ukrainian-nuclear-power-plant-has-the-world-on-edge-a-safety-expert-explains-what-could-go-wrong-189429">The Conversation</a>Russian forces occupy Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, the 
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station in the Ukrainian city of Enerhodar. 
Russian and Ukrainian forces are fighting nearby, and shelling has <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-93-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine">damaged power and communication lines to the plant</a>, prompting <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-nuclear-plant-escapes-meltdown-zelenskiy-says-moscow-kyiv-trade-blame-2022-08-25/">fears for the plant’s safety</a> and evoking painful memories in a country still scarred by the world’s worst nuclear accident, at Chernobyl in 1986. In addition, Russian authorities have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/24/revealed-russian-plan-to-disconnect-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-from-grid">developed plans to disconnect the plant</a>
 from Ukraine’s power grid – in the event of damage to the plant, 
according to the Russians, as a prelude to switching the plant to the 
grid in Russian-occupied territory, according to the Ukrainians. 
Disconnecting the plant from the grid is a risky operation.The Conversation asked <a href="https://sites.usc.edu/meshkati/">Najmedin Meshkati</a>, a professor and <a href="https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/thirty-three-years-catastrophe-chernobyl-universal-lesson-global-nuclear-power-industry">nuclear safety expert</a> at the University of Southern California, to explain the risks of warfare taking place in and around nuclear power plants.<h2>How safe was the Zaporizhzhia power plant before the Russian attack?</h2>The facility at Zaporizhzhia is the largest nuclear plant in Europe and one of the largest in the world. It has six <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/pwrs.html">pressurized water reactors</a>, which use water to both sustain the fission reaction and cool the reactor. These differ from the <a href="https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx">RBMK</a>
 reactors at Chernobyl, which used graphite instead of water to sustain 
the fission reaction. RBMK reactors are not seen as very safe, and there
 are <a href="https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx">only eight remaining in use</a> in the world, all in Russia.The reactors at Zaporizhzhia are of moderately good design, and the 
plant has a decent safety record, with a good operating background.<figure>
 <iframe width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qthg5xE196w"></iframe>
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>Ukrainian authorities tried to keep the war away from the site by 
asking Russia to observe a 30-kilometer (nearly 19-mile) safety buffer. 
But Russian troops surrounded the facility and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/04/zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant-everything-you-need-to-know">seized it in March</a>.<h2>What are the risks to a nuclear plant in a conflict zone?</h2>Nuclear power plants are built for peacetime operations, not wars.The worst thing that could happen is if a site is deliberately or accidentally shelled. If a shell hit the plant’s <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/pools.html">spent fuel pool</a>
 – which contains the still-radioactive spent fuel – or if fire spread 
to the spent fuel pool, it could release radiation. This spent fuel pool
 isn’t in the containment building, and as such is more vulnerable.Containment buildings, which house nuclear reactors, are also not 
protected against deliberate shelling. They are built to withstand a 
minor internal explosion of, say, a pressurized water pipe. But they are
 not designed to withstand a huge explosion.As to the reactors in the containment building, it depends on the 
weapons being used. The worst-case scenario is that a bunker-buster 
missile breaches the containment dome – consisting of a thick shell of 
reinforced concrete on top of the reactor – and explodes. That would 
badly damage the nuclear reactor and release radiation into the 
atmosphere, which would make it difficult to send in first responders to
 contain any resulting fire. It could be another Chernobyl.<h2>What are the concerns going forward?</h2>The safety problems I see are twofold:1) Human errorThe workers at the facility are working under incredible stress, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/23/world/europe/ukraine-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant.html">reportedly at gunpoint</a>. Stress increases the chance of error and poor performance.There is a human element in running a nuclear power plant – operators
 are the first and last layers of defense for the facility and the 
public. They are the first people to detect any anomaly and to stop any 
incident. Or if there’s an accident, they will be the first to 
heroically try to contain it. 2) Power failureThe second problem is that the nuclear plant needs constant electricity, and that is harder to maintain in wartime.Even if you shut down the reactors, the plant will need off-site 
power to run the huge cooling system to remove the residual heat in the 
reactor and bring it to what is called a <a href="http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-is-cold-shutdown.html">cold shutdown</a>. Water circulation is always needed to make sure the spent fuel doesn’t overheat.Spent fuel pools also need constant water circulation to keep them 
cool, and they need cooling for several years before they can be put in 
dry casks. One of the problems in the 2011 <a href="https://theconversation.com/10-years-after-fukushima-safety-is-still-nuclear-powers-greatest-challenge-155541">Fukushima disaster</a>
 in Japan was the emergency generators intended to replace lost off-site
 power got inundated with water and failed. In situations like that, you
 get “<a href="https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/nuclear-station-blackout/">station blackout</a>” – and that is one of the worst things that could happen. It means no electricity to run the cooling system.In that circumstance, the spent fuel overheats and its zirconium 
cladding can create hydrogen bubbles. If you can’t vent these bubbles, 
they will explode, spreading radiation.If there is a loss of outside power, operators will have to rely on 
emergency generators. But emergency generators are huge machines – 
finicky, unreliable gas guzzlers. And you still need cooling waters for 
the generators themselves. My biggest worry is that Ukraine suffers from a sustained power grid 
failure. The likelihood of this increases during a conflict because 
power line pylons may come down under shelling, or gas power plants 
might get damaged and cease to operate. And though Ukrainian 
intelligence services <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-russia-plans-disconnect-nuclear-plants-blocks-grid-2022-08-19/">claim that the Russians intend to stockpile diesel fuel</a>
 to keep these emergency generators going, it is unlikely that Russian 
troops will have excess fuel given their need to fuel their own 
vehicles.<h2>How else does a war affect the safety of nuclear plants?</h2>One of the overarching concerns about the effects of war on nuclear plants is that war degrades <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK253947/">safety culture</a>,
 which is crucial in running a plant. I believe that safety culture is 
analogous to the human body’s immune system, which protects against 
pathogens and diseases. Safety culture is pervasive and has a widespread
 impact. “It can affect all elements in a system for good or ill,” <a href="https://www.safetymattersblog.com/2014/11/a-life-in-error-by-james-reason.html">according to</a> <a href="https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/jim-reason-FBA/">psychologist James Reason</a>.The tragic situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant violates every universally accepted tenet of <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1500/ML15007A487.pdf">healthy nuclear safety culture</a>, especially the maintenance of an environment where personnel can raise safety concerns.War adversely affects safety culture in a number of ways. Operators 
are stressed and fatigued and may be scared to death to speak out if 
something is going wrong. Then there is the maintenance of a plant, 
which may be compromised by lack of staff or unavailability of spare 
parts. Governance, regulation and oversight – all crucial for the safe 
running of a nuclear industry – are also disrupted, as is local 
infrastructure, such as the capability of local firefighters. In war, 
everything is harder.<h2>So what can be done to better protect Ukraine’s nuclear power plants?</h2>The only solution is declaring a demilitarized zone around nuclear 
plants. However, Russia has so far rejected United Nations Secretary 
General António Guterres’ <a href="https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc15003.doc.htm">plea for declaring a demilitarized zone around the plant</a>. I believe an optimal though not ideal solution is to bring the two 
operating reactors to a cold shutdown before any further loss of 
off-site power and risk of station blackout, store more fuel for 
emergency diesel generators at different locations at the plant site, 
and keep only a skeleton caretaker staff to look after the spent fuel 
pools.Admittedly, this is only a stopgap measure. In parallel with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency’s effort under the leadership of its 
Director, General Rafael Mariano Grossi, I believe that the U.N. 
Security Council should immediately empower a special commission to 
mediate between the warring parties. It could be modeled after the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Monitoring-Verification-and-Inspection-Commission">United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission</a> in 2000, and appoint a prominent, senior international statesman as its head. I believe the person should be of the caliber and in the mold of the legendary former director general of the IAEA, <a href="https://worldleaders.columbia.edu/directory/hans-blix">Hans Blix</a>
 of Sweden. Blix led the agency at the time of the Chernobyl accident in
 1986 and commands respect in today’s Russia and Ukraine.War, in my opinion, is the worst enemy of nuclear safety. This is an 
unprecedented and volatile situation. Only through active, pragmatic <a href="https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/sites/default/files/engineering_diplomacy_science__diplomacy.pdf">engineering and nuclear diplomacy</a> can an amenable and lasting solution to this vexing problem be found.Najmedin Meshkati is a Professor of Engineering and International Relations, University of Southern California.<div><iframe src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189429/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" width="1" height="1"></iframe></div>

🎥 Expert explains perils surrounding Ukrainian nuclear plant

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration is tying its authority to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-biden-plan-d9c8e18774a744187c9af634bf4eb728">cancel student debt</a>&nbsp;to the coronavirus pandemic and to a 2003 law aimed at providing help to members of the military. Legal challenges are expected.

(Click below to watch the President's comments on the plan)

Skeptics of the administration's ability to act on its own, without new legislation, had once included President Joe Biden himself and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

But in a legal opinion released Wednesday, the Justice Department said that the HEROES Act of 2003 gives the administration “sweeping authority” to reduce or eliminate student debt during a national emergency, ”when significant actions with potentially far-reaching consequences are often required."

The law was adopted with overwhelming bipartisan support at a time when U.S. forces were fighting two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq. It gives the Education secretary authority to waive rules relating to student financial aid programs in times or war or national emergency.

Former President Donald&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-donald-trump-ap-top-news-politics-health-83b0c8e168548fd453b0c177dd1f203a">Trump declared a national emergency in 2020</a>&nbsp;because of the pandemic, and it remains in effect.

But neither Trump nor Biden, until the president's announcement on Wednesday, had tried to wipe out so much student debt at one time.

The Justice Department's legal justification seemed to be anticipating criticism that the broad-based debt cancellation might run afoul of Supreme Court rulings, including a June decision limiting the administration’s ability to combat climate change.

In that case, the court declared that when dealing with such “major questions,” the administration must point to clear congressional authorization when it asserts new power over an important part of the economy.

The justification for the debt cancellation “seems to tee up nicely -- perhaps inadvertently — a major-questions doctrine challenge as the opinion seems to suggest the agency could forgive all student loans for everyone due to pandemic" if the agency head deemed it necessary, Chris Walker, a University of Michigan law professor wrote on Twitter.

But Abby Shafroth, an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, said a challenge to the loan-forgiveness plan could falter in several ways, including the specific reference to national emergencies in the 2003 law.

Both the Trump and Biden administrations have previously relied on the HEROES Act to pause loan repayments during the pandemic and, in Biden's case, overhaul a student debt forgiveness program for public workers, Shafroth said.

“Today's action is significant, but not different in kind," she said.

A separate issue may be finding someone who is harmed by the administration's action and has legal standing to sue, she said.

The Job Creators Network, which promotes conservative economic policies, said it was weighing a lawsuit to try and block Biden's plan.

“This executive overreach transfers taxpayer dollars from hardworking ordinary Americans and small businesses to disproportionately higher earners with college degrees,” said Alfredo Ortiz, president and CEO of the group. “It does nothing to address the underlying issue of outrageous college costs. Indeed, it rewards colleges for making education unaffordable and entrenches the failing status quo.”

An Education Department memo, produced in the final days of the Trump administration, concluded that there was no authority to cancel debt on a broad basis.

The department has never invoked the law, or any other statute, “for the blanket or mass cancellation, compromise, discharge or forgiveness of student loan principal balances,” Reed Rubinstein, then an Education Department lawyer, wrote in January 2021.

The issue has been under review for some 18 months, Lisa Brown, the top lawyer at the Education Department, wrote in a separate memo that was released Wednesday and called on Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to rescind Rubinstein's memo.

Pelosi also reversed course. In Las Vegas Tuesday, Pelosi said that she “didn’t know what – what authority the President had to do this. And now clearly, it seems he has the authority to do this.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 40 million Americans could see their&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/student-loans">student loan debt reduced</a>&nbsp;— and in many cases eliminated — under the long-awaited forgiveness plan President Joe Biden announced Wednesday, a historic but politically divisive move in the run-up to the midterm elections. The plan could cost an estimated&nbsp;$400 billion to $600 billion.

Fulfilling a campaign promise, Biden is erasing $10,000 in federal student loan debt for those with incomes below $125,000 a year, or households that earn less than $250,000. He’s canceling an additional $10,000 for those who received federal Pell Grants to attend college.

It’s seen as an unprecedented attempt to stem the tide of America’s rapidly rising student debt, but it doesn't address the broader issue — the high cost of college.

Republicans quickly denounced the plan as an insult to Americans who have repaid their debt and to those who didn’t attend college. Critics across the political spectrum also questioned whether Biden has authority for the move, and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-covid-health-education-0fea030a0875c0e4e1a39b0c098bd48a">legal challenges are virtually certain.</a>

Biden also extended a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-congress-miguel-cardona-lifestyle-education-2fad4da6c3fee980b5dacc65561ffa81">pause on federal student loan payments</a>&nbsp;for what he called the “final time.” The pause is now set to run through the end of the year, with repayments to restart in January.

“Both of these targeted actions are for families who need it the most: working and middle class people hit especially hard during the pandemic,” Biden said at the White House Wednesday afternoon.

The cancellation applies to federal student loans used to attend undergraduate and graduate school, along with Parent Plus loans. Current college students qualify if their loans were issued before July 1. For dependent students, their parents’ household income must be below $250,000.

Most people will need to apply for the relief. The Education Department has income data for a small share of borrowers, but the vast majority will need to prove their incomes through an application process. Officials said applications will be available before the end of the year.

Biden’s plan makes 43 million borrowers eligible for some debt forgiveness, with 20 million who could get their debt erased entirely, according to the administration. About 60% of borrowers are recipients of federal Pell Grants, which are reserved for undergraduates with the most significant financial need, meaning more than half can get $20,000 in relief.

Sabrina Cartan, a 29-year-old media strategist in New York City, is expecting her federal debt to get wiped out entirely. When she checked the balance Wednesday, it was $9,940.

Cartan used the loans to attend Tufts University, and with Biden’s plan she will be able to help her parents repay the additional thousands they borrowed for her education. As a first-generation college student, she called it a “leveling moment.”

“I know there are people who feel that this isn’t enough, and that is true for a lot of people,” said Cartan, who already has repaid about $10,000 of her loans. “I can say for me personally and for a lot of people, that is a lot of money.”

For Braxton Simpson, Biden’s plan is a great first step, but it’s not enough. The 23-year-old MBA student at North Carolina Central University has more than $40,000 in student loans. As an undergraduate student she took jobs to minimize her debt, but at $10,000 a semester, the costs piled up.

As a Black woman, she felt higher education was a requirement to obtain a more stable financial future, even if that meant taking on large amounts of debt, she said.

“In order for us to get out of a lot of the situations that have been systemically a part of our lives, we have to go to school,” Simpson said. “And so we end up in debt.”

The plan doesn’t apply to future college students, but Biden is proposing a separate rule that would reduce monthly payments on federal student debt.

The proposal would create a new payment plan requiring borrowers to pay no more than 5% of their earnings, down from 10% in similar existing plans. It would forgive any remaining balance after 10 years, down from 20 years now.

It would also raise the floor for repayments, meaning no one earning less than 225% of the federal poverty level would need to make monthly payments.

As a regulation, it would not require congressional approval. But it can take more than a year to finalize.

Biden’s plan comes after more than a year of deliberation, with the president facing strong&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-business-education-95094e1f367262f93eb49fa653bed4c9">lobbying from liberals</a>&nbsp;who wanted sweeping debt forgiveness, and from moderates and conservatives who questioned its basic fairness.

Once a popular campaign promise during the presidential primary, the issue created an almost unwinnable situation. Some fellow Democrats criticized the plan Wednesday, saying it’s too costly and does little to solve the debt crisis.

“In my view, the administration should have further targeted the relief, and proposed a way to pay for this plan,” said Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo. “While immediate relief to families is important, one-time debt cancellation does not solve the underlying problem.”

Still, many Democrats rallied around it, including support from those who wanted Biden to go beyond $10,000.

“I will keep pushing for more because I think it’s the right thing to do,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who had urged Biden to forgive up to $50,000 a person. “But we need to take a deep breath here and recognize what it means for the president of the United States to touch so many hard-working middle class families so directly.”

Proponents see cancellation as a matter of racial justice. Black students are more likely to take out federal student loans and at higher amounts than their white peers.

The NAACP, which pressed Biden to cancel at least $50,000 per person, said the plan is “one step closer” to lifting the burden of student debt.

Derrick Johnson, the group’s president, urged Biden to cancel the debt quickly and without bureaucratic hurdles for borrowers.

Biden's decision to impose an income cap goes against objections from some who say adding the detailed application process to verify incomes could deter some borrowers who need help the most.

The Biden administration defended the cap as a gate against wealthier borrowers. Politically, it’s designed to counter arguments from critics who call debt cancellation a handout for the wealthy. Republicans hit hard with that argument on Wednesday despite the cap.

“President Biden’s inflation is crushing working families, and his answer is to give away even more government money to elites with higher salaries,” Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell said. “Democrats are literally using working Americans’ money to try to buy themselves some enthusiasm from their political base.”

One of the chief political sticking points has been the cost: Biden’s new plan, including debt cancellation, a new repayment plan and the payment freeze, will cost between $400 billion to $600 billion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit that advocates for lower deficits.

Asked about the cost Wednesday, Susan Rice, Biden’s domestic policy adviser, said, “I can’t give you that off the top of my head.”

There are also lingering questions about the administration's authority to cancel student loan debt. The Justice Department released a legal opinion concluding that the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act gives the Education secretary the “authority to reduce or eliminate the obligation to repay the principal balance of federal student loan debt.”

The legal opinion also concluded that the forgiveness could be applied on a “class-wide” basis in response to the coronavirus pandemic, a national emergency..

Lawsuits are likely nonetheless. The Job Creators Network, which promotes conservative economic policies, said it was considering legal options, with president and CEO Alfredo Ortiz calling the president's effort “fundamentally unfair” to those who never took out loans for college.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/8/1661367707782.png" alt="Critics across the political spectrum also questioned whether Biden has authority for the move, and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-covid-health-education-0fea030a0875c0e4e1a39b0c098bd48a">legal challenges are virtually certain.</a>&nbsp;President Biden and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona during Wednesday's announcement-White House photo" />
 <figcaption>Critics across the political spectrum also questioned whether Biden has authority for the move, and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-covid-health-education-0fea030a0875c0e4e1a39b0c098bd48a">legal challenges are virtually certain.</a>&nbsp;President Biden and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona during Wednesday's announcement-White House photo</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration is tying its authority to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-biden-plan-d9c8e18774a744187c9af634bf4eb728">cancel student debt</a>&nbsp;to the coronavirus pandemic and to a 2003 law aimed at providing help to members of the military. Legal challenges are expected.(Click below to watch the President's comments on the plan)<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dBLHyXaefxg?start=3" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Skeptics of the administration's ability to act on its own, without new legislation, had once included President Joe Biden himself and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.But in a legal opinion released Wednesday, the Justice Department said that the HEROES Act of 2003 gives the administration “sweeping authority” to reduce or eliminate student debt during a national emergency, ”when significant actions with potentially far-reaching consequences are often required."<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/8/1661447135030.png" alt="The White House student aid web site has been overwhelmed." />
 <figcaption>The White House student aid web site has been overwhelmed.</figcaption>
 </figure>The law was adopted with overwhelming bipartisan support at a time when U.S. forces were fighting two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq. It gives the Education secretary authority to waive rules relating to student financial aid programs in times or war or national emergency.Former President Donald&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-donald-trump-ap-top-news-politics-health-83b0c8e168548fd453b0c177dd1f203a">Trump declared a national emergency in 2020</a>&nbsp;because of the pandemic, and it remains in effect.But neither Trump nor Biden, until the president's announcement on Wednesday, had tried to wipe out so much student debt at one time.The Justice Department's legal justification seemed to be anticipating criticism that the broad-based debt cancellation might run afoul of Supreme Court rulings, including a June decision limiting the administration’s ability to combat climate change.In that case, the court declared that when dealing with such “major questions,” the administration must point to clear congressional authorization when it asserts new power over an important part of the economy.The justification for the debt cancellation “seems to tee up nicely -- perhaps inadvertently — a major-questions doctrine challenge as the opinion seems to suggest the agency could forgive all student loans for everyone due to pandemic" if the agency head deemed it necessary, Chris Walker, a University of Michigan law professor wrote on Twitter.But Abby Shafroth, an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, said a challenge to the loan-forgiveness plan could falter in several ways, including the specific reference to national emergencies in the 2003 law.Both the Trump and Biden administrations have previously relied on the HEROES Act to pause loan repayments during the pandemic and, in Biden's case, overhaul a student debt forgiveness program for public workers, Shafroth said.“Today's action is significant, but not different in kind," she said.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">President Biden’s $300 billion student loan handout will fuel inflation and do nothing to actually lower the cost of higher education. My full statement below. <a href="https://t.co/NYRuDheaCL">pic.twitter.com/NYRuDheaCL</a>&mdash; Senator Jerry Moran (@JerryMoran) <a href="https://twitter.com/JerryMoran/status/1562547995228266496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 24, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>A separate issue may be finding someone who is harmed by the administration's action and has legal standing to sue, she said.The Job Creators Network, which promotes conservative economic policies, said it was weighing a lawsuit to try and block Biden's plan.“This executive overreach transfers taxpayer dollars from hardworking ordinary Americans and small businesses to disproportionately higher earners with college degrees,” said Alfredo Ortiz, president and CEO of the group. “It does nothing to address the underlying issue of outrageous college costs. Indeed, it rewards colleges for making education unaffordable and entrenches the failing status quo.”An Education Department memo, produced in the final days of the Trump administration, concluded that there was no authority to cancel debt on a broad basis.The department has never invoked the law, or any other statute, “for the blanket or mass cancellation, compromise, discharge or forgiveness of student loan principal balances,” Reed Rubinstein, then an Education Department lawyer, wrote in January 2021.The issue has been under review for some 18 months, Lisa Brown, the top lawyer at the Education Department, wrote in a separate memo that was released Wednesday and called on Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to rescind Rubinstein's memo.Pelosi also reversed course. In Las Vegas Tuesday, Pelosi said that she “didn’t know what – what authority the President had to do this. And now clearly, it seems he has the authority to do this.”-------------WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 40 million Americans could see their&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/student-loans">student loan debt reduced</a>&nbsp;— and in many cases eliminated — under the long-awaited forgiveness plan President Joe Biden announced Wednesday, a historic but politically divisive move in the run-up to the midterm elections. The plan could cost an estimated&nbsp;$400 billion to $600 billion.Fulfilling a campaign promise, Biden is erasing $10,000 in federal student loan debt for those with incomes below $125,000 a year, or households that earn less than $250,000. He’s canceling an additional $10,000 for those who received federal Pell Grants to attend college.It’s seen as an unprecedented attempt to stem the tide of America’s rapidly rising student debt, but it doesn't address the broader issue — the high cost of college.Republicans quickly denounced the plan as an insult to Americans who have repaid their debt and to those who didn’t attend college. Critics across the political spectrum also questioned whether Biden has authority for the move, and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-covid-health-education-0fea030a0875c0e4e1a39b0c098bd48a">legal challenges are virtually certain.</a>Biden also extended a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-congress-miguel-cardona-lifestyle-education-2fad4da6c3fee980b5dacc65561ffa81">pause on federal student loan payments</a>&nbsp;for what he called the “final time.” The pause is now set to run through the end of the year, with repayments to restart in January.“Both of these targeted actions are for families who need it the most: working and middle class people hit especially hard during the pandemic,” Biden said at the White House Wednesday afternoon.The cancellation applies to federal student loans used to attend undergraduate and graduate school, along with Parent Plus loans. Current college students qualify if their loans were issued before July 1. For dependent students, their parents’ household income must be below $250,000.Most people will need to apply for the relief. The Education Department has income data for a small share of borrowers, but the vast majority will need to prove their incomes through an application process. Officials said applications will be available before the end of the year.Biden’s plan makes 43 million borrowers eligible for some debt forgiveness, with 20 million who could get their debt erased entirely, according to the administration. About 60% of borrowers are recipients of federal Pell Grants, which are reserved for undergraduates with the most significant financial need, meaning more than half can get $20,000 in relief.Sabrina Cartan, a 29-year-old media strategist in New York City, is expecting her federal debt to get wiped out entirely. When she checked the balance Wednesday, it was $9,940.Cartan used the loans to attend Tufts University, and with Biden’s plan she will be able to help her parents repay the additional thousands they borrowed for her education. As a first-generation college student, she called it a “leveling moment.”“I know there are people who feel that this isn’t enough, and that is true for a lot of people,” said Cartan, who already has repaid about $10,000 of her loans. “I can say for me personally and for a lot of people, that is a lot of money.”For Braxton Simpson, Biden’s plan is a great first step, but it’s not enough. The 23-year-old MBA student at North Carolina Central University has more than $40,000 in student loans. As an undergraduate student she took jobs to minimize her debt, but at $10,000 a semester, the costs piled up.As a Black woman, she felt higher education was a requirement to obtain a more stable financial future, even if that meant taking on large amounts of debt, she said.“In order for us to get out of a lot of the situations that have been systemically a part of our lives, we have to go to school,” Simpson said. “And so we end up in debt.”The plan doesn’t apply to future college students, but Biden is proposing a separate rule that would reduce monthly payments on federal student debt.The proposal would create a new payment plan requiring borrowers to pay no more than 5% of their earnings, down from 10% in similar existing plans. It would forgive any remaining balance after 10 years, down from 20 years now.It would also raise the floor for repayments, meaning no one earning less than 225% of the federal poverty level would need to make monthly payments.As a regulation, it would not require congressional approval. But it can take more than a year to finalize.Biden’s plan comes after more than a year of deliberation, with the president facing strong&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-business-education-95094e1f367262f93eb49fa653bed4c9">lobbying from liberals</a>&nbsp;who wanted sweeping debt forgiveness, and from moderates and conservatives who questioned its basic fairness.Once a popular campaign promise during the presidential primary, the issue created an almost unwinnable situation. Some fellow Democrats criticized the plan Wednesday, saying it’s too costly and does little to solve the debt crisis.“In my view, the administration should have further targeted the relief, and proposed a way to pay for this plan,” said Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo. “While immediate relief to families is important, one-time debt cancellation does not solve the underlying problem.”Still, many Democrats rallied around it, including support from those who wanted Biden to go beyond $10,000.“I will keep pushing for more because I think it’s the right thing to do,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who had urged Biden to forgive up to $50,000 a person. “But we need to take a deep breath here and recognize what it means for the president of the United States to touch so many hard-working middle class families so directly.”Proponents see cancellation as a matter of racial justice. Black students are more likely to take out federal student loans and at higher amounts than their white peers.The NAACP, which pressed Biden to cancel at least $50,000 per person, said the plan is “one step closer” to lifting the burden of student debt.Derrick Johnson, the group’s president, urged Biden to cancel the debt quickly and without bureaucratic hurdles for borrowers.Biden's decision to impose an income cap goes against objections from some who say adding the detailed application process to verify incomes could deter some borrowers who need help the most.The Biden administration defended the cap as a gate against wealthier borrowers. Politically, it’s designed to counter arguments from critics who call debt cancellation a handout for the wealthy. Republicans hit hard with that argument on Wednesday despite the cap.“President Biden’s inflation is crushing working families, and his answer is to give away even more government money to elites with higher salaries,” Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell said. “Democrats are literally using working Americans’ money to try to buy themselves some enthusiasm from their political base.”One of the chief political sticking points has been the cost: Biden’s new plan, including debt cancellation, a new repayment plan and the payment freeze, will cost between $400 billion to $600 billion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit that advocates for lower deficits.Asked about the cost Wednesday, Susan Rice, Biden’s domestic policy adviser, said, “I can’t give you that off the top of my head.”There are also lingering questions about the administration's authority to cancel student loan debt. The Justice Department released a legal opinion concluding that the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act gives the Education secretary the “authority to reduce or eliminate the obligation to repay the principal balance of federal student loan debt.”The legal opinion also concluded that the forgiveness could be applied on a “class-wide” basis in response to the coronavirus pandemic, a national emergency..Lawsuits are likely nonetheless. The Job Creators Network, which promotes conservative economic policies, said it was considering legal options, with president and CEO Alfredo Ortiz calling the president's effort “fundamentally unfair” to those who never took out loans for college.

🎥 Student loan forgiveness plan faces a battle in court

KANSAS CITY —A school district in southwest Missouri has decided to bring back spanking as a form of discipline for students, but only if their parents agree.

Classes resumed Tuesday in the Cassville School District for the first time since the school board in June approved bringing corporal punishment back to the 1,900-student district about 60 miles southwest of Springfield. The district dropped the practice in 2001.

The policy states that corporal punishment will be used only when other forms of discipline, such as suspensions, have failed and then only with the superintendent's permission.

District spokeswoman Mindi Artherton was out of the office Friday and a woman who answered the phone in her office suggested reading the policy. She said staff had already done interviews. “At this time, we will focus on educating our students,” she added, before hanging up.

Corporal punishment has long been criticized by many child development experts as being detrimental to a child's growth.

Sarah Font, an associate professor of sociology and public policy at Pennsylvania State University who coauthored a 2016 study on the subject, said the practice is falling out of favor with public health officials and researchers because it doesn't seem to improve child behavior in the long term.

“And there’s reasons to believe that it’s, in the long term, harmful for kids' overall development and functioning,” Font said. “And so really, I think it’s a question of not just are there harms, but there’s no evidence of benefit.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that corporal punishment is constitutional and left it up to states to set their own policies. When Font's research was published in 2016, 19 states allowed the practice.

Even among the states that permit it, most districts still don’t use it, Font said, given concerns about whether students were being punished for symptoms of disabilities or other issues that would be illegal or inappropriate.

“It just seems like a really high risk practice for a school to intentionally seek out,” she said.

Her research found that districts using corporal punishment are generally in poor, Republican-leaning rural areas in southern states. Font said Black children are disproportionately subjected to it, in part because the policies are more commonplace in districts with higher minority populations.

Cassville Superintendent Merlyn Johnson told The Springfield News-Leader the decision to revive corporal punishment came after an anonymous survey sent to parents, students and school employees found they were concerned about student behavior and discipline.

Johnson said many parents have complained that the district doesn't use corporal punishment.

“We’ve had people actually thank us for it,” he said. “Surprisingly, those on social media would probably be appalled to hear us say these things, but the majority of people that I’ve run into have been supportive.”

The policy says a witness from the district must be present and that the discipline will not be used in front of other students.

“When it becomes necessary to use corporal punishment, it shall be administered so that there can be no chance of bodily injury or harm,” the policy says. “Striking a student on the head or face is not permitted.”

In Missouri, periodic efforts to ban corporal punishment in schools have failed to gain traction in the state Legislature.

A spokeswoman for Missouri’s K-12 education department said the state does not track which school districts allow corporal punishment because those decisions are made at the local level and approved by school boards.

KANSAS CITY —A school district in southwest Missouri has decided to bring back spanking as a form of discipline for students, but only if their parents agree.Classes resumed Tuesday in the Cassville School District for the first time since the school board in June approved bringing corporal punishment back to the 1,900-student district about 60 miles southwest of Springfield. The district dropped the practice in 2001.The policy states that corporal punishment will be used only when other forms of discipline, such as suspensions, have failed and then only with the superintendent's permission.District spokeswoman Mindi Artherton was out of the office Friday and a woman who answered the phone in her office suggested reading the policy. She said staff had already done interviews. “At this time, we will focus on educating our students,” she added, before hanging up.Corporal punishment has long been criticized by many child development experts as being detrimental to a child's growth.Sarah Font, an associate professor of sociology and public policy at Pennsylvania State University who coauthored a 2016 study on the subject, said the practice is falling out of favor with public health officials and researchers because it doesn't seem to improve child behavior in the long term.“And there’s reasons to believe that it’s, in the long term, harmful for kids' overall development and functioning,” Font said. “And so really, I think it’s a question of not just are there harms, but there’s no evidence of benefit.”The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that corporal punishment is constitutional and left it up to states to set their own policies. When Font's research was published in 2016, 19 states allowed the practice.Even among the states that permit it, most districts still don’t use it, Font said, given concerns about whether students were being punished for symptoms of disabilities or other issues that would be illegal or inappropriate.“It just seems like a really high risk practice for a school to intentionally seek out,” she said.Her research found that districts using corporal punishment are generally in poor, Republican-leaning rural areas in southern states. Font said Black children are disproportionately subjected to it, in part because the policies are more commonplace in districts with higher minority populations.Cassville Superintendent Merlyn Johnson told The Springfield News-Leader the decision to revive corporal punishment came after an anonymous survey sent to parents, students and school employees found they were concerned about student behavior and discipline.Johnson said many parents have complained that the district doesn't use corporal punishment.“We’ve had people actually thank us for it,” he said. “Surprisingly, those on social media would probably be appalled to hear us say these things, but the majority of people that I’ve run into have been supportive.”The policy says a witness from the district must be present and that the discipline will not be used in front of other students.“When it becomes necessary to use corporal punishment, it shall be administered so that there can be no chance of bodily injury or harm,” the policy says. “Striking a student on the head or face is not permitted.”In Missouri, periodic efforts to ban corporal punishment in schools have failed to gain traction in the state Legislature.A spokeswoman for Missouri’s K-12 education department said the state does not track which school districts allow corporal punishment because those decisions are made at the local level and approved by school boards.

School district revives paddling to discipline students

WASHINGTON (AP) — Fourteen of the 15 boxes recovered from former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate early this year contained classified documents, many of them top secret, mixed in with miscellaneous newspapers, magazines and personal correspondence,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22267182-trump-search-warrant-affidavit">according to an FBI affidavit</a>&nbsp;released Friday.

<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.102.1.pdf">Click here to read full document</a>&nbsp;from the Justice Department

No space at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate was authorized for the storage of classified material, according to the court papers, which laid out the FBI's rationale for searching the property this month, including “probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found.”

The 32-page affidavit — heavily redacted to protect the safety of witnesses and law enforcement officials and “the integrity of the ongoing investigation” — offers the most detailed description to date of the government records being stored at Mar-a-Lago long after Trump left the White House. It also reveals the gravity of the government’s concerns that the documents were there illegally.

The document makes clear how the haphazard retention of top secret government records, and the apparent failure to safeguard them despite months of entreaties from U.S. officials, has exposed Trump to fresh legal peril just as he lays the groundwork for another potential presidential run in 2024.

“The government is conducting a criminal investigation concerning the improper removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces, as well as the unlawful concealment or removal of government records,” an FBI agent wrote on the first page of the affidavit in seeking a judge's permission for a warrant to search the property.

Documents previously made public show that federal agents are investigating potential violations of three federal laws, including one that governs gathering, transmitting or losing defense information under the Espionage Act. The other statutes address the concealment, mutilation or removal of records and the destruction, alteration or falsification of records in federal investigations.

<a href="https://apnews.com/article/new-york-donald-trump-mar-a-lago-classified-information-8dd6297eaebc358ffc15c153dc1b000e">Trump has long insisted, despite clear evidence to the contrary,</a>&nbsp;that he fully cooperated with government officials. And he has rallied Republicans behind him by painting the search as a politically motivated witch hunt intended to damage his reelection prospects. He repeated that refrain on his social media site Friday, saying he and his representatives had had a close working relationship with the FBI and “GAVE THEM MUCH.”

The affidavit does not provide new details about&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/florida-donald-trump-mar-a-lago-merrick-garland-government-and-politics-f63c018b600e1539ff3660a896a132d0">11 sets of classified records recovered during the Aug. 8 search</a>&nbsp;at Mar-a-Lago but instead concerns a separate batch of 15 boxes that the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved from the home in January. The National Archives then sent the matter to the Justice Department, indicating in its referral that a review showed “a lot” of classified materials, according to the affidavit.

The affidavit argues a search of Mar-a-Lago was necessary due to the highly sensitive material found in the boxes recovered by the National Archives. Of 184 documents marked classified, 25 were at the top secret level, the affidavit says. Some had special markings suggesting they included information from highly sensitive human sources or the collection of electronic “signals” authorized by a special intelligence court.

Some of those classified records were mixed with other documents, including newspapers, magazines and miscellaneous print-outs, the affidavit says, citing a letter from the Archives.

Douglas London, a former senior CIA officer and author of “The Recruiter," said this showed Trump's lack of respect for controls. “One of the rules of classified is you don’t mix classified and unclassified so there’s no mistakes or accidents," he said.

The affidavit shows how agents were authorized to search a large swath of Mar-a-Lago, including Trump's official post-presidential “45 Office,” storage rooms and all other areas in which boxes or documents could be stored. They did not propose searching areas of the property used or rented by Mar-a-Largo members, such as private guest suites.

The document notes that no space at Mar-a-Lago had been authorized for the storage of classified information at least since the end of Trump’s term in office.

The FBI submitted the affidavit, or sworn statement, to a judge so it could obtain the warrant to search Trump's property. Affidavits typically contain vital information about an investigation, with agents spelling out&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-government-and-politics-59de0ccd435db270d65f155a7bd9a60e">the justification for why they want to search a particular property</a>&nbsp;and why they believe they’re likely to find evidence of a potential crime there.

Affidavits routinely remain sealed during pending investigations. But in an acknowledgment of the extraordinary public interest in the investigation, U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart on Thursday ordered the department by Friday to make public a redacted version of the affidavit.

In a separate document unsealed Friday, Justice Department officials explained that it was necessary to redact some information to “protect the safety and privacy of a significant number of civilian witnesses, in addition to law enforcement personnel, as well as to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation.”

The second half of the affidavit is almost entirely redacted, making it impossible to discern the scope of the investigation or where it might be headed. It does not identify by name any people who may be subjects of the investigation and it does not answer core questions, such as why top secret documents were taken to Mar-a-Lago at the end of the president's term even though the government regards them as presidential records and even though classified information requires special storage.

Though Trump's spokesman derided the investigation as “all politics,” the affidavit makes clear that the FBI search was hardly the first time federal law enforcement had expressed concerns about the records. The government issued a subpoena for records in May, the Trump legal team has said, and the Justice Department's top counterintelligence official visited Mar-a-Lago in June.

In addition, the affidavit includes excerpts from a June 8 letter in which a Justice Department official reminds a Trump lawyer that Mar-a-Lago is not authorized to hold classified records and requests that the room at the estate where the documents had been stored be secured and that they “be preserved in that room in their current condition until further notice.”

<a href="https://apnews.com/article/florida-donald-trump-mar-a-lago-merrick-garland-government-and-politics-5ffebbfdae66d71790195f67f282fe80">The back-and-forth culminated in the Aug. 8 search</a>&nbsp;in which agents retrieved the 11 sets of classified records.

The document unsealed Friday also offer insight into arguments the Trump legal team is expected to make as the case moves forward. It includes a letter from Trump lawyer M. Evan Corcoran in which he asserts that a president has “absolute authority" to declassify documents and that “presidential actions involving classified documents are not subject to criminal sanction.”

Mark Zaid, a longtime national security lawyer who has criticized Trump for his handling of classified information, said the letter was “blatantly wrong” to assert Trump could declassify “anything and everything.”

“There are some legal, technical defenses as to certain provisions of the espionage act whether it would apply to the president,” Zaid said. “But some of those provisions make no distinction that would raise a defense.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — Fourteen of the 15 boxes recovered from former President Donald Trump's Florida estate earlier this year contained documents with classification markings,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22267182-trump-search-warrant-affidavit">according to an FBI affidavit</a>&nbsp;released Friday explaining the justification for the search of the property this month.

<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.102.1.pdf">Click here to read full document</a> from the Justice Department

The 32-page affidavit, even in its redacted form, contains additional details about an ongoing criminal investigation that has brought fresh legal peril for Trump just as he lays the groundwork for another presidential run. It underscores the volume of sensitive government documents located at Mar-a-Lago and reveals FBI concerns that the records were being retained illegally.

Though the document offers the most substantial description of the investigation, federal officials also redacted significant portions of it to protect the identity of witnesses and to avoid revealing sensitive investigative tactics.

The FBI submitted the affidavit, or sworn statement, to a judge so it could obtain a warrant to search Trump's property. Affidavits typically contain vital information about an investigation, with agents spelling out the justification for why they want to search a particular property and why they believe they’re likely to find evidence of a potential crime there. But affidavits routinely remain sealed during pending investigations, making the judge’s decision to reveal portions of it all the more striking.

In an acknowledgment of the extraordinary public interest in the investigation, U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart on Thursday ordered the department by Friday to make public a redacted version of the affidavit. The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/justice-providing-redacted-trump-affidavit-a734bd242eef7f9a47fc11293c35e396">directive</a>&nbsp;came hours after federal law enforcement officials submitted under seal the portions of the affidavit that they want to keep secret as their investigation moves forward.

The redactions proposed by the Justice Department are extensive given the sensitivity of the investigation, lessening the likelihood that the document will offer a comprehensive look at the basis for the unprecedented search or significant insights about the direction of the probe. Yet even a redacted affidavit can contain at least some fresh revelations about the investigation, and is likely to help explain why federal agents who had tried for months to recover sensitive government records from Mar-a-Lago ultimately felt compelled to obtain a search warrant.

<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22131425-mar-a-lago-search-documents">Documents previously made public</a>&nbsp;show the FBI retrieved from the property 11 sets of classified documents, including information marked at the top secret level. They also show that federal agents are investigating potential violations of three federal laws, including one that governs gathering, transmitting or losing defense information under the Espionage Act. The other statutes address the concealment, mutilation or removal of records and the destruction, alteration or falsification of records in federal investigations.

It's possible that the affidavit, particularly in its unredacted form, could shed light on key unanswered questions, including why sensitive presidential documents — classified documents, among them — were transported to Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House and why Trump and his representatives did not supply the entire tranche of material to the National Archives and Records Administration despite repeated entreaties.

It could also offer additional details on the back-and-forth between Trump and the FBI, including a subpoena for documents that was issued last spring, as well as a June visit by FBI and Justice Department officials to assess how the materials were being stored.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/8/1661531953459.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Fourteen of the 15 boxes recovered from former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate early this year contained classified documents, many of them top secret, mixed in with miscellaneous newspapers, magazines and personal correspondence,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22267182-trump-search-warrant-affidavit">according to an FBI affidavit</a>&nbsp;released Friday.<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.102.1.pdf">Click here to read full document</a>&nbsp;from the Justice DepartmentNo space at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate was authorized for the storage of classified material, according to the court papers, which laid out the FBI's rationale for searching the property this month, including “probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found.”The 32-page affidavit — heavily redacted to protect the safety of witnesses and law enforcement officials and “the integrity of the ongoing investigation” — offers the most detailed description to date of the government records being stored at Mar-a-Lago long after Trump left the White House. It also reveals the gravity of the government’s concerns that the documents were there illegally.The document makes clear how the haphazard retention of top secret government records, and the apparent failure to safeguard them despite months of entreaties from U.S. officials, has exposed Trump to fresh legal peril just as he lays the groundwork for another potential presidential run in 2024.“The government is conducting a criminal investigation concerning the improper removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces, as well as the unlawful concealment or removal of government records,” an FBI agent wrote on the first page of the affidavit in seeking a judge's permission for a warrant to search the property.Documents previously made public show that federal agents are investigating potential violations of three federal laws, including one that governs gathering, transmitting or losing defense information under the Espionage Act. The other statutes address the concealment, mutilation or removal of records and the destruction, alteration or falsification of records in federal investigations.<a href="https://apnews.com/article/new-york-donald-trump-mar-a-lago-classified-information-8dd6297eaebc358ffc15c153dc1b000e">Trump has long insisted, despite clear evidence to the contrary,</a>&nbsp;that he fully cooperated with government officials. And he has rallied Republicans behind him by painting the search as a politically motivated witch hunt intended to damage his reelection prospects. He repeated that refrain on his social media site Friday, saying he and his representatives had had a close working relationship with the FBI and “GAVE THEM MUCH.”The affidavit does not provide new details about&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/florida-donald-trump-mar-a-lago-merrick-garland-government-and-politics-f63c018b600e1539ff3660a896a132d0">11 sets of classified records recovered during the Aug. 8 search</a>&nbsp;at Mar-a-Lago but instead concerns a separate batch of 15 boxes that the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved from the home in January. The National Archives then sent the matter to the Justice Department, indicating in its referral that a review showed “a lot” of classified materials, according to the affidavit.The affidavit argues a search of Mar-a-Lago was necessary due to the highly sensitive material found in the boxes recovered by the National Archives. Of 184 documents marked classified, 25 were at the top secret level, the affidavit says. Some had special markings suggesting they included information from highly sensitive human sources or the collection of electronic “signals” authorized by a special intelligence court.Some of those classified records were mixed with other documents, including newspapers, magazines and miscellaneous print-outs, the affidavit says, citing a letter from the Archives.Douglas London, a former senior CIA officer and author of “The Recruiter," said this showed Trump's lack of respect for controls. “One of the rules of classified is you don’t mix classified and unclassified so there’s no mistakes or accidents," he said.The affidavit shows how agents were authorized to search a large swath of Mar-a-Lago, including Trump's official post-presidential “45 Office,” storage rooms and all other areas in which boxes or documents could be stored. They did not propose searching areas of the property used or rented by Mar-a-Largo members, such as private guest suites.The document notes that no space at Mar-a-Lago had been authorized for the storage of classified information at least since the end of Trump’s term in office.The FBI submitted the affidavit, or sworn statement, to a judge so it could obtain the warrant to search Trump's property. Affidavits typically contain vital information about an investigation, with agents spelling out&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-government-and-politics-59de0ccd435db270d65f155a7bd9a60e">the justification for why they want to search a particular property</a>&nbsp;and why they believe they’re likely to find evidence of a potential crime there.Affidavits routinely remain sealed during pending investigations. But in an acknowledgment of the extraordinary public interest in the investigation, U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart on Thursday ordered the department by Friday to make public a redacted version of the affidavit.In a separate document unsealed Friday, Justice Department officials explained that it was necessary to redact some information to “protect the safety and privacy of a significant number of civilian witnesses, in addition to law enforcement personnel, as well as to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation.”The second half of the affidavit is almost entirely redacted, making it impossible to discern the scope of the investigation or where it might be headed. It does not identify by name any people who may be subjects of the investigation and it does not answer core questions, such as why top secret documents were taken to Mar-a-Lago at the end of the president's term even though the government regards them as presidential records and even though classified information requires special storage.Though Trump's spokesman derided the investigation as “all politics,” the affidavit makes clear that the FBI search was hardly the first time federal law enforcement had expressed concerns about the records. The government issued a subpoena for records in May, the Trump legal team has said, and the Justice Department's top counterintelligence official visited Mar-a-Lago in June.In addition, the affidavit includes excerpts from a June 8 letter in which a Justice Department official reminds a Trump lawyer that Mar-a-Lago is not authorized to hold classified records and requests that the room at the estate where the documents had been stored be secured and that they “be preserved in that room in their current condition until further notice.”<a href="https://apnews.com/article/florida-donald-trump-mar-a-lago-merrick-garland-government-and-politics-5ffebbfdae66d71790195f67f282fe80">The back-and-forth culminated in the Aug. 8 search</a>&nbsp;in which agents retrieved the 11 sets of classified records.The document unsealed Friday also offer insight into arguments the Trump legal team is expected to make as the case moves forward. It includes a letter from Trump lawyer M. Evan Corcoran in which he asserts that a president has “absolute authority" to declassify documents and that “presidential actions involving classified documents are not subject to criminal sanction.”Mark Zaid, a longtime national security lawyer who has criticized Trump for his handling of classified information, said the letter was “blatantly wrong” to assert Trump could declassify “anything and everything.”“There are some legal, technical defenses as to certain provisions of the espionage act whether it would apply to the president,” Zaid said. “But some of those provisions make no distinction that would raise a defense.”------WASHINGTON (AP) — Fourteen of the 15 boxes recovered from former President Donald Trump's Florida estate earlier this year contained documents with classification markings,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22267182-trump-search-warrant-affidavit">according to an FBI affidavit</a>&nbsp;released Friday explaining the justification for the search of the property this month.<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.102.1.pdf">Click here to read full document</a> from the Justice DepartmentThe 32-page affidavit, even in its redacted form, contains additional details about an ongoing criminal investigation that has brought fresh legal peril for Trump just as he lays the groundwork for another presidential run. It underscores the volume of sensitive government documents located at Mar-a-Lago and reveals FBI concerns that the records were being retained illegally.Though the document offers the most substantial description of the investigation, federal officials also redacted significant portions of it to protect the identity of witnesses and to avoid revealing sensitive investigative tactics.The FBI submitted the affidavit, or sworn statement, to a judge so it could obtain a warrant to search Trump's property. Affidavits typically contain vital information about an investigation, with agents spelling out the justification for why they want to search a particular property and why they believe they’re likely to find evidence of a potential crime there. But affidavits routinely remain sealed during pending investigations, making the judge’s decision to reveal portions of it all the more striking.In an acknowledgment of the extraordinary public interest in the investigation, U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart on Thursday ordered the department by Friday to make public a redacted version of the affidavit. The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/justice-providing-redacted-trump-affidavit-a734bd242eef7f9a47fc11293c35e396">directive</a>&nbsp;came hours after federal law enforcement officials submitted under seal the portions of the affidavit that they want to keep secret as their investigation moves forward.The redactions proposed by the Justice Department are extensive given the sensitivity of the investigation, lessening the likelihood that the document will offer a comprehensive look at the basis for the unprecedented search or significant insights about the direction of the probe. Yet even a redacted affidavit can contain at least some fresh revelations about the investigation, and is likely to help explain why federal agents who had tried for months to recover sensitive government records from Mar-a-Lago ultimately felt compelled to obtain a search warrant.<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22131425-mar-a-lago-search-documents">Documents previously made public</a>&nbsp;show the FBI retrieved from the property 11 sets of classified documents, including information marked at the top secret level. They also show that federal agents are investigating potential violations of three federal laws, including one that governs gathering, transmitting or losing defense information under the Espionage Act. The other statutes address the concealment, mutilation or removal of records and the destruction, alteration or falsification of records in federal investigations.It's possible that the affidavit, particularly in its unredacted form, could shed light on key unanswered questions, including why sensitive presidential documents — classified documents, among them — were transported to Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House and why Trump and his representatives did not supply the entire tranche of material to the National Archives and Records Administration despite repeated entreaties.It could also offer additional details on the back-and-forth between Trump and the FBI, including a subpoena for documents that was issued last spring, as well as a June visit by FBI and Justice Department officials to assess how the materials were being stored.The Justice Department had earlier contested arguments by media organizations to make the affidavit public, saying any disclosure could contain private information about witnesses and about investigative tactics. But Reinhart, acknowledging the extraordinary public interest in the investigation, said last week that he was disinclined to keep the entire document sealed and told federal officials to submit to him in private the redactions it wanted to make.In his order Thursday, Reinhart said the department had made compelling arguments to leave sealed broad swaths of the document that, if disclosed, would reveal grand jury information; the identities of witnesses and “uncharged parties"; and details about the investigation's “strategy, direction, scope, sources and methods.”But he also said he was satisfied “that the Government has met its burden of showing that its proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve the Government’s legitimate interest in the integrity of the ongoing investigation and are the least onerous alternative to sealing the entire Affidavit.”