The Justice Department had former FBI Director James Comey indicted again. He's accused of threatening President Trump with an Instagram post. Trump's former personal lawyer announced the move against one of Trump's critics. So how strong is the case? Hi, Martinez. That is Steve Inskeep. And this is Up First from NPR News. King Charles told Congress the United States and United Kingdom have more in common than just the word united. Ours is an indispensable partnership. We must not disregard everything that has sustained us for the last 80 years. How did the king assert himself in a speech before Congress? And the Supreme Court considers a case that could allow mass deportations. The administration wants to cancel a temporary protected status that protects many thousands of people. Stay with us. We've got the news you need to start your day. The Justice Department is prosecuting former FBI Director James Comey again. A new indictment accuses Comey of threatening President Trump. His alleged crime is posting a photo on Instagram. It's the administration's second try at indicting Comey, who was a longtime Trump critic. NPR's Kerry Johnson is with us. Kerry, what's the basis for this new indictment? Well, last May, Jim Comey posted a photo of the numbers 86-47 arranged in shells on the beach, 86 being a slang term for get rid of and 47 being the 47th American president, Donald Trump. Comey deleted the photo. He said he thought it was a political message, not a threat. But now a grand jury in North Carolina has made a federal case out of this. It's charged Comey with two felonies, including allegedly threatening the life of the president. Here's the acting attorney general Todd Blanchett in a news conference yesterday. While this case is unique and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute. All right, so it sounds like the Justice Department is saying that Comey is getting and treated just like everybody else. Is that so? We have evidence to suggest otherwise, including posts from President Trump himself. He's been demanding that Jim Comey and other people who investigated Trump be prosecuted. DOJ, of course, charged Comey with different alleged crimes last year in Virginia over some testimony he gave to Congress. But a judge threw out that case because the prosecutor, who was a former personal lawyer for Trump, was not legally appointed. Authorities are appealing that decision. They said from the stage yesterday, the Comey investigation will continue. And Jim Comey is not the only member of his own family to be the target of an alleged retribution campaign. Last year, for no clear reason, the Justice Department fired Comey's daughter, Maureen, from her job as a federal prosecutor in New York. A judge just allowed her wrongful termination case to move ahead in federal court. All right. So what happens now for James Comey? And what about the legal process next? Comey going to get his day in court And just like last year he have to appear as a defendant where he can enter a plea on these new charges DOJ officials said he going to get a trial by jury of his peers And Comey says he prepared to defend himself I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid. And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. So let's go. Some lawyers I spoke with wonder if this case will ever get to a trial. That's because prosecutors would need to prove Comey had some understanding of the threatening nature of this post under Supreme Court precedent. And so far, the evidence is he thought this was political speech protected by the First Amendment. Is this action against James Comey part of a broader pattern that maybe we're seeing at the Justice Department? It is. The Justice Department, under the acting attorney general Todd Blanche, really seems to be intensifying its effort to go after Trump's perceived enemies. Last week, it charged the Southern Poverty Law Center with misleading donors for paying informants to infiltrate hate groups. Yesterday, it indicted a former aide to Dr. Anthony Fauci for allegedly trying to conceal documents about the COVID pandemic. People who spent decades at DOJ worry juries and judges are losing confidence in its work, and one of those former lawyers wrote a new report about how DOJ is being used for political payback. payback. Jonathan Warblewski called it vengeance masquerading as justice. That's NPR's Kerry Johnson. Kerry, thanks. Thank you. President Trump hosted King Charles at a state dinner Tuesday night. They wore white tie at the White House. Charles took note of Trump's changes to the house and noted that the British troops made their own changes to the building when they burned it in 1814. The king also presented Trump with a ship's bell from a World War II vessel that was called Trump. Charles's day of diplomacy also included an address to Congress. The bond of kinship and identity between America and the United Kingdom is priceless and eternal. NPR political reporter Elena Moore has been following the king's visit. So Elena, what stood out to you from the king's speech, not the Colin Firth film, but from what King Charles said? Yeah, well, the King's trip to the U.S. this week has been in many ways symbolic. It's a state visit tied to the celebration of America's 250th birthday, and his speech Tuesday was the first time in nearly 35 years that a British monarch addressed a joint session of Congress. But at the same time, it's also tradition for the royal families to remain politically neutral, and though this speech wasn't overtly political, the King did come with a clear message. At a moment when we're seeing a growing appetite for isolationist policies in this country, he argued that the U.S. and its European allies are stronger together. Ours is an indispensable partnership. We must not disregard everything that has sustained us for the last 80 years. Instead, we must build on it. And that did feel like a counter-argument to what we've heard from President Trump, who's long been critical of European leaders and NATO. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is the head of the UK government The king is a figurehead though So what makes the king comments notable or have a weight Well you know Trump has very different views of Starmer and King Charles. He's made no secret of his longtime admiration for the British royal family, and he's repeatedly praised the king himself. At the same time, Trump has been increasingly vocal in recent weeks about his displeasure with Starmer, arguing that the UK has not provided adequate military support in the Iran war, and that's caused headaches for the king at home, where much of the British public opposed this trip. It's the latest gripe Trump has with NATO countries more broadly, and he's previously said he'd consider pulling the U.S. out of the historic post-World War II alliance. So the royals may only have soft power, but hearing Charles lobby like that for NATO is striking. Yeah, there's been a lot of tension between the U.S. and NATO even before the war with Iran began. And what did the king have to say about any of that? Yeah, you know, it's interesting because Charles never directly referenced Iran by name in his speech. But he didn't shy away from discussing Ukraine. And there have been calls from many Republicans to stop sending military aid to the country in its war with Russia. European leaders have widely pushed back against that and pledged to keep supporting Ukraine. And, you know, King Charles stressed the importance of that support in his speech, referencing how throughout history, the U.S. and the U.K. have stayed united in many major conflicts. He even reminded lawmakers how the first and only time that NATO has invoked its mutual defense clause was in support of the U.S. after the September 11th attacks. Then he said this. Today, Mr. Speaker, that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people. And that was a moment that actually sparked a bipartisan standing ovation in the chamber. That's NPR political reporter Elena Moore. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Today, the Supreme Court considers the Trump administration's effort to deport two large groups of people. They have been living legally in the U.S. under what's called temporary protected status. NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg joins us now to discuss this. Hi there, Nina. Hi there. Temporary protected status. What is that? It allows eligible individuals to live and work in the United States if they cannot return to their own countries because of natural disasters, armed conflicts, and other, quote, extraordinary or temporary conditions. Congress enacted the law to establish criteria for selecting, processing, and registering people fleeing such turmoil. And since then, every president, Republican or Democrat, has embraced the program except President Trump. He's trying to get rid of it. And today, two countries are the test cases. Haiti, where a devastating earthquake killed over 300,000 people in 2010, leaving to this day roving gangs, cholera epidemics and no functioning government. And Syria where a relatively small group of 7 has been granted protected status because civil war and Israeli bombing attacks President Trump of course has never made any secret of his views on these countries And here he is speaking to a crowd last year and using vulgarity Why is it we only take people from whole countries, right? Why can't we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few? I'm guessing that TPS is not for places that are as stable as Norway. But how exactly does it work? It applies only to people who have lived legally and continuously in the U.S. since their home country's most recent TPS designation. They're eligible to remain here, but under very strict criteria. Ahilan Arulanuntham represents the Syrians in the case. They have to go through a vetting process, which involves biometrics, background check, running them against all the federal government's databases. Two misdemeanors, you're out. In addition, people with TPS status have to renew every 18 months and go through the process all over again. The Trump administration, however, contends that none of this matters because under the 1990 TPS statute, none of these judgments is subject to review by the courts at all. 21 attorneys general from red states are supporting that view, among them is Kansas Attorney General Chris Kobach. He notes that under TPS, some of the 17 countries that have been designated as too dangerous to go back to have been on the list for more than a decade. Temporary protected status was never intended to be a de facto amnesty. That status, as its name suggests, is temporary. OK, he's right about the word temporary. And somebody might say the Syrian civil war is over. So what's the counter argument? that. Lawyers for the TPS recipients counter that the Trump administration has failed to comply with the procedures mandated under federal law. They point to then-Secretary of Homeland Security, Christine Noem's finding that even if Haiti is unsafe for them to return to, allowing them to stay here is, quote, contrary to the national interest. The Haitians with TPS status prevailed in the lower courts on a preliminary basis, but the Supreme Court has been critical of lower courts for stepping outside of their lane in immigration cases. And the court has consistently deferred to the administration's judgments. Okay. NPR's Nina Totenberg, thanks as always. Good to see you. Good to see you, Steve. And that's Up First for Wednesday, April 29th. I'm E. Martinez. And I'm Steve Inskeep. Today's Up First was edited by Anna Yukonanov, Jason Breslow, Krishnadev Kalamer, Mohamed Elbardisi, and Adriana Gallardo. It was produced by Ziyad Bach and Nia Dumas. Our director is Christopher Thomas. We get engineering support from Nisha Hainas, and our technical director is Carly Strange. Our supervising producer is Michael Lipkin, who has the job of trying to supervise us. Ha! Join us again tomorrow. you
