News
Army says Arlington National Cemetery worker was 'pushed aside' by Trump aides
Graves with flags for Memorial Day are seen in Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery, in Arlington, Va., on May 27.
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
The U.S. Army said an employee at Arlington National Cemetery who tried to “ensure adherence” to rules that prohibit political activities at the cemetery “was abruptly pushed aside,” but that the employee decided not to press charges against the Trump campaign staffers who allegedly pushed her.
The statement Thursday comes in response to NPR’s reporting on former President Donald Trump’s visit to Arlington and an altercation his staff had with a cemetery employee.
“Participants in the August 26th ceremony and the subsequent Section 60 visit were made aware of federal laws, Army regulations and DoD policies, which clearly prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds,” the statement said. “An ANC employee who attempted to ensure adherence to these rules was abruptly pushed aside. Consistent with the decorum expected at ANC, this employee acted with professionalism and avoided further disruption. The incident was reported to the JBM-HH police department, but the employee subsequently decided not to press charges. Therefore, the Army considers this matter closed.”
The Army, in its statement, called the incident “unfortunate,” adding: “it is also unfortunate that the ANC employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked.”
Because federal law prohibits Army employees from being involved with any political campaign, the staff at the cemetery did not deal directly with the Trump campaign about his visit there. A source familiar with the event said the cemetery staff worked with the staff of Republican Congressman Brian Mast of Florida, who joined Trump at Arlington.
Arlington Cemetery staff dealt directly with Mast’s chief of staff, James Langenderfer, briefing him extensively on the rules, which include no campaign events at the cemetery. They also reiterated that only an official Arlington National Cemetery photographer — and no campaign photographer — could be used at Section 60, the location of the recent American war dead. The source said Langenderfer told them the Trump campaign agreed to these rules.
NPR reached out to Mast’s staff and asked if Langenderfer was briefed and relayed that information to the Trump campaign. They did not address the questions but instead released a statement.
In the statement to NPR, Mast said: “President Trump conducted no politics at Arlington National Cemetery.”
The statement comes a day after Trump shared a TikTok video including footage from Arlington National Cemetery that likely violates a federal law against using military cemeteries for campaigning purposes.
NPR reported that Trump campaign staffers had a physical altercation with an Arlington National Cemetery staffer on Monday over the restriction.
It’s not the first time Trump has been accused of politicizing the military, but the campaign is seeking to downplay what happened in the aftermath.

Trump was at Arlington on Monday to commemorate the third anniversary of an attack in Afghanistan that killed 13 U.S. service members amid the disastrous withdrawal of troops. Trump and other Republicans have blamed President Biden and Vice President Harris for the chaos and loss of life.
The 21-second video posted on Trump’s TikTok account shows the former president laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and several snippets of Trump joining Gold Star family members at gravesites of their loved ones in a part of the cemetery known as Section 60.
“We lost 13 great, great people — what a horrible day it was,” Trump says over somber music. “We didn’t lose one person in 18 months, and then they took over the disaster, the leaving of Afghanistan.”
Trump has been making this claim about 18 months without military casualties during his administration for years, and it’s not true. The 18-month period from February 2020 to August 2021 saw no combat-related deaths in Afghanistan, with part of that when Biden was in office.
The Trump campaign was not authorized to film or photograph in Section 60, federal law prohibits the use of military cemeteries for campaign events, and two campaign staffers got in a physical and verbal altercation with the Arlington staffer who tried to prevent the filming.
In a statement after NPR’s original story, family members present Monday said they invited Trump and gave approval for his photographer and videographer to document an emotional moment of remembrance.

Some of those family members also spoke at the Republican National Convention, bashing Biden and vocally endorsing Trump.
“Joe Biden may have forgotten that our children died, but we have not forgotten — Donald Trump has not forgotten,” said Cheryl Juels in Milwaukee at the RNC in July. Juels is the aunt of Sgt. Nicole Gee, one of the 13 U.S. service members killed at Abbey Gate in Afghanistan in 2021.
“Joe Biden owes the men and women that served in Afghanistan a debt of gratitude and an apology. Donald Trump loves this country and will never forget the sacrifice and bravery of our service members,” she added. “Join us in putting him back in the White House.”
Though the loved ones said they were OK with the cameras present, the families do not have the power to suspend the rules.
The family of Master Sgt. Andrew Marckesano, a Green Beret who died by suicide after serving multiple combat tours and who is buried in Section 60, said according to their conversations with the cemetery, “the Trump campaign staffers did not adhere to the rules that were set in place for this visit.”
“We hope that those visiting this sacred site understand that there were real people who sacrificed for our freedom and that they are honored and respected and treated accordingly,” they said in a statement.
The Trump campaign responds
In the aftermath of the visit to Arlington, the Trump campaign’s response has taken on a tone of nastiness. One spokesman said the cemetery staffer was “clearly suffering from a mental health episode” and promised to release footage of the encounter but has so far declined to do so.
On the campaign trail in Pennsylvania on Wednesday, the Republican vice presidential nominee, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, said Harris could “go to hell” over the Afghanistan withdrawal and blamed reporters for the campaign’s controversy, which he called a “disagreement.”
“You guys in the media, you’re acting like Donald Trump filmed a TV commercial at a grave site,” Vance said. “He was there providing emotional support to a lot of brave Americans who lost loved ones they never should have lost. And there happened to be a camera there, and somebody gave him permission to have that camera there.”
Trump echoed that argument Thursday, doubling down on attacks against Harris and Biden in a clip posted to his campaign’s Trump Social account from a campaign event in Michigan.
“She does not respect you, ask the families of the 13 incredible servicemember heroes who died during the surrender of Afghanistan — which was surrendered by Kamala and ‘Sleepy Joe’ — whether or not Kamala Harris cares about our young people and our military,” Trump said.
Meanwhile, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who attended the Arlington events with Trump, apologized in a social media post for sending a campaign fundraising email with a photo of him and the former president in Section 60 with the family of Staff Sgt. Darin Taylor Hoover.
Cox’s official gubernatorial X account posted a photo from the restricted area, and the post is still online.
This is not the first time Trump has been accused of politicizing the military for his personal gain. He has allegedly called dead soldiers “suckers” and “losers,” insulted the late Sen. John McCain for being a prisoner of war and recently stoked controversy for saying civilian Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients are much better than those who received the Medal of Honor — the highest military award in the country, often given posthumously.
News
How a Nation of Immigrants Traces Its Roots
Why are there so many Greeks in Tarpon Springs, Fla.? Because in the early 1900s, Greek sponge divers came from the Dodecanese islands and revolutionized the sponge industry on Florida’s gulf coast.
What explains the pockets of Portuguese and Cape Verdeans in New Bedford, Mass.? In the 1800s, winds pushed whaling boats east to the Azores and Cape Verde, where experienced whalers joined the crews.
There’s the Basque population in Boise, Idaho, whose ancestors traded a mountainous region between France and Spain for the American West in the hopes of finding gold but later turned to sheep herding. There are the families of Yemeni immigrants hired by Ford Motor Company to build cars in Detroit, and the Vietnamese refugees who were resettled near New Orleans and Houston, where they could carry on shrimping.
These stories are everywhere on this map of American ancestry, which shows how people described their backgrounds to the Census Bureau. There are nearly 200 unique identities represented; blend them — as 340 million Americans do — and we arrive at a jumbled, overlapping, story-filled infinity.
Much of what we see is a history of immigration. Over 250 years, the country has absorbed more than 100 million people. We can trace the pressures that pushed and pulled them here — and the policies that welcomed certain groups while keeping others out — through the patterns in where their descendants live today.
Now, a larger share of the country was born abroad than ever before, and the Trump administration’s sweeping immigration bans echo exclusionist policies enacted in response to similar demographic conditions a century ago.
Those policies defined Americans for generations. Recent efforts to limit immigration will likewise affect how future Americans understand their heritage and themselves.
How we got here
In the late 1700s, the area that would become the present-day United States was already diverse. At least 1.5 million Native people, and possibly many more, were living across the territory. They were joined by about three million Europeans and enslaved Africans living in both the English colonies and the French and Spanish territories.
From colonial times, immigration was an important contributor to population growth. It accelerated as the new country’s territory expanded west and immigrants arrived to settle it. From 1820 to 1860, more than five million people came, through a mostly open door.
With the advent of the steamship, the cost of passage plummeted, and companies offered special immigrant fares that were often coupled with rail tickets to the interior of the country. Once a community of immigrants was established somewhere, it tended to grow.
After 1840, immigration from Western Europe began to rise quickly as political instability in Germany and the famine in Ireland drove people to leave. Asian immigrants, drawn by the discovery of gold in California in 1848, were recruited to work on farms and railroads.
Later in the 19th century, pogroms across Eastern Europe and the aftermath of Italian reunification drove a surge of migration to the United States. From 1880 to 1920, 24 million immigrants arrived. They went almost everywhere except the South, where the land-owning elite already had cheap labor from the formerly enslaved and poor tenant farmers.
Cities swelled. In 1910, according to the Ellis Island National Museum of Immigration, three-quarters of the residents of Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit and New York City were immigrants or children of immigrants.
1850
2 million total immigrants
The 1850 census did not include data on the birthplace of enslaved people.
1910
14 million total immigrants
1970
9 million total immigrants
2024
50 million total immigrants
Many rural areas in the Midwest had a similar share of immigrants in 1910, but newcomers to the cities tended to be from novel sources like Russia or Italy. That meant there were more languages, more cuisines and more workers. It also meant there were more crowds, more slums and more people behaving in unfamiliar ways — fodder to drive views that the new immigrants were unassimilable and that policies were needed to keep them out.
The first federal law to severely limit immigration had come much earlier, in 1882, when practically all Chinese people were barred from entering the country. More restrictions followed, and eventually animosity toward new immigrants led to the passage of laws in the 1920s creating a quota system tied to nationality.
Western Europeans were given generous quotas and Southern and Eastern Europeans much smaller ones. For the rest of the Eastern Hemisphere, the quotas were set to almost nothing. Ships raced through the night to reach New York Harbor, all trying to be first to dock at Ellis Island.
There weren’t quotas for countries in the Americas and the Caribbean, but there were other restrictions. Mexicans faced mass deportation campaigns in the 1930s and 1950s, even as millions were recruited as temporary workers to fill agricultural jobs across the Southwest.
Over the next 40 years, these rules drove the foreign-born population in the United States to its lowest levels. Children of immigrants replaced immigrants, blending into American society while retaining their own cultural traditions.
Then, alongside the civil rights movement of the 1960s, activists and lawmakers who saw the national quota system as racist pushed to replace it with one based on employment and family ties.
Another decades-long wave of immigration followed, this time from different parts of the world.
Chart data is unavailable.
Share of immigrants in the United States by region of birth
The new rules allowed people to sponsor their family members and relatives, and they gave preference to workers with advanced degrees and specialized skills. The family visas, in particular, led to an unforeseen boom in immigration.
An expanded refugee program also brought more immigrants, many from Southeast Asia who were displaced by Cold War conflicts.
For the first time, immigrants from the Western Hemisphere faced limits on their numbers. Similar to the European workers who arrived earlier in the century, many chose to settle in the United States permanently instead of risking returning to their home countries between periods of working in the United States. Millions who couldn’t get visas turned to entering illegally.
The most recent immigration wave, during the Biden administration, was different still: The number of visas for immigrants remained steady, while migrants from Central America arrived at the southwest border in large numbers to seek asylum. Desperate conditions in Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela, as well as wars in Afghanistan, Ukraine and elsewhere led hundreds of thousands of people to flee to the United States — many of them drawn to established communities of immigrants from their countries.
Where we are today
The lines of American ancestry today are not neatly drawn, and groups overlap and spill into one another. Some people don’t answer the census questions about their origins at all. For others, it’s complicated. Descendents of enslaved people, for example, may identify themselves as African American because they are unable to trace their roots to a specific place.
Many areas have truly mixed populations, with people of several different ancestries nearly equally represented.
Take this area just southwest of Houston, for example:
Nigerian, Jordanian, Mexican, Vietnamese, African American, Salvadoran, Iraqi, German, English, Irish and Chinese people are all among the top groups in these neighborhoods.
Every city has its own distinct pattern, visualized in the the patchwork of gold, green and blue in Los Angeles, the stark reds, blues and yellows of Chicago, a purple Minneapolis, a green Honolulu:
Who comes next?
If the patterns in these maps reflect the immigration policies of at least a century ago, we can expect them to shift and change again as a result of contemporary decisions about who makes up the American mosaic.
No comprehensive immigration legislation has passed Congress since the 1980s. After a surge of immigration during the Biden administration, in which an estimated eight million people entered the country over three years, demographic experts now estimate that the United States could reach net-zero or negative immigration sometime soon. That is in part because of the Trump administration’s aggressive actions to speed deportations of people who are in the country illegally and to limit pathways to legal immigration.
At the same time, the factors that pull immigrants to the United States remain strong. And, unlike 100 years ago, the country now faces a declining population and work force. The tension between the need for new workers and resurgent nativist politics will influence who comes, who settles and who is counted among the ancestors of future generations.
About the data
The ancestry maps in this article and the related interactive map draw from seven tables of race, ethnicity and ancestry data that the Census Bureau published as part of the American Community Survey estimates for 2019-2024.
The census ancestry and origin data are estimates based on a sample of the population and include margins of error that can be large for small population groups. We used the estimates published by the Census Bureau without adjustment.
In the survey, respondents are asked questions about their race and whether they are of Hispanic or Latino origin. Each of those questions allows respondents to list their national origins. An additional question asks about their ancestries. People can claim multiple ancestries or origins and appear in multiple categories.
Some groups appear in multiple tables. For example, people can select “white” as their race and list “German” as a specific origin. Separately, anyone can also choose “German” in response to the survey’s ancestry question. For such groups, we used the table with the higher value for the country as a whole. In a small number of cases, similar ancestries were grouped together.
Colors for each census tract are blended based on the adjusted number of people who reported being of each race and ancestry in the tract, for each group above a minimum threshold.
In charts of the immigrant population, counts come from Census Bureau research publications, the 2000 census and the American Community Survey. Those counts include only foreign-born residents and exclude any descendants born in the United States.
News
What the SCOTUS campaign finance ruling means, according to an expert
Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter testifies during a Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearing on artificial intelligence and the future of elections on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., Sept. 27, 2023.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The Supreme Court struck down limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates in a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines. The ruling is the latest in a series of Supreme Court decisions that have loosened campaign finance restrictions, overturning a 2001 precedent that upheld the spending limits.
Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter, who now serves as president of the Campaign Legal Center, joined NPR’s Morning Edition to break down the ruling. Speaking to NPR’s Michel Martin, Potter discussed why the court reversed its earlier precedent, how the ruling changes campaign finance rules and whether greater transparency could address concerns about corruption.
Listen to the full interview by clicking on the blue play button above. And read takeaways from the conversation below.
The post-Watergate limits were meant to prevent corruption
Potter said they were designed to stop donors from routing large contributions through national party committees to directly fund a favored candidate’s campaign. The restrictions were intended to prevent “an obvious way around” campaign contribution limits.
The court previously upheld the same limits
Asked why the Supreme Court upheld the law about 20 years ago, Potter said the justices concluded the restrictions were a constitutional way to prevent corruption. He said the court viewed them as an “anti-circumvention measure” to stop donors from using political parties to bypass contribution limits.
Potter rejects the majority’s rationale
Potter rejected the majority’s view that political parties have less political power than outside groups, saying earlier Supreme Court decisions allowing unlimited outside spending created that imbalance. He pointed to Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent in support of that argument.
Disclosure wouldn’t necessarily reveal private fundraising arrangements
Potter said disclosure alone would not address his concerns because it cannot reveal private agreements between candidates and donors. While campaign donations to political parties are public, he said voters would not see behind-the-scenes requests from candidates asking donors to contribute to party committees that later support their campaigns.
“We’re never going to see that,” Potter said. “I don’t think there’s a way to practically disclose those backroom deals.”
This interview was written for the web by Majd Al-Waheidi and edited by Treye Green.
News
Woman survives falling 1,500 feet down Mount Shasta
A woman suffered several injuries but survived falling 1,500 feet down California’s Mount Shasta on Sunday, officials said.
The climber, 31, was attempting to ascend the mountain, which is technically a stratovolcano with the second-highest peak in the Cascades, according to the U.S. Forest Service. She was climbing in a group of three novices at an elevation of around 13,000 feet when she fell.
She suffered a suspected ankle fracture and “additional injuries consistent with the significant fall,” although she was found alert and “in good spirits,” the forest service said. Officials haven’t identified the climber.
Efforts to locate and rescue the woman got underway at around noon on Sunday and involved three climbing rangers from the forest service as well as members of the California Highway Patrol. An initial helicopter search was limited because of cloud cover on the mountain, the forest service said, prompting one ranger to ascend a portion of the mountain on foot to reach her. One member of the woman’s climbing party helped carry rescue equipment, as did a fourth climber who stopped to assist.
California Highway Patrol safely removed the woman from the mountain at around 5:30 p.m., and she was eventually taken to Mercy Medical Center Mount Shasta for medical care, according to the forest service.
The agency said the woman’s fall “serves as an important reminder that Mount Shasta is a high-altitude mountaineering environment, not a hike,” and “experienced climbers can encounter rapidly ranging weather, steep snow and ice, rockfall, and hazardous fall conditions.”
It also encouraged prospective climbers to “be honest about your experience and physical conditioning” before attempting to summit the mountain.
The woman and her climbing party were ascending Mount Shasta along a route called Avalanche Gulch, which “is steep and rigorous requiring crampons, a mountain axe, helmet, and basic snow travel skills,” according to the Mount Shasta Avalanche Center. It takes climbers up a 7,000-foot vertical ascent that features “steep snow and ice, rock fall, and weather extremes,” the center said.
-
North Dakota18 seconds agoFestive atmosphere, heightened security mark Trump’s visit to Medora
-
Ohio3 minutes agoWhy MS NOW rates Ohio’s Senate race a Toss Up
-
Oklahoma8 minutes agoMarissa Murrow Act takes effect, requiring specialized training for event venue bartenders
-
Oregon15 minutes agoFormer Oregon corrections officer receives lifetime hunting ban, fined over $114K
-
Pennsylvania18 minutes agoPennsylvania State Police trooper killed in crash along Interstate 81
-
Rhode Island23 minutes ago‘Real Housewives of Rhode Island’ star Liz McGraw exits show after one season
-
South-Carolina30 minutes agoSouth Carolina Lottery Powerball, Pick 3 results for July 1, 2026
-
South Dakota33 minutes agoFamilies celebrate 250th in South Dakota