News
What we know about the charges against New York’s Attorney General Letitia James
New York Attorney General Letitia James has been criminally indicted on federal bank fraud charges over a property she purchased in Virginia.
US President Donald Trump has pushed his officials to legally pursue James, among other political opponents of his.
James denies any wrongdoing, calling the case a “desperate weaponisation of our justice system”. A similar accusation was made against her by Trump and his allies when James won a civil fraud case against him in 2023.
Here is what we know about the case against James – and a recap of the one she led against Trump.
What has Letitia James been charged with?
The US Department of Justice (DoJ) says James has been charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.
The charges relate to James’s three-bedroom property in Norfolk, Virginia.
Prosecutors allege she secured a mortgage claiming the property as her secondary residence, while her primary residence was in Brooklyn, New York. Instead, she rented out the property to a family of three, according to court documents.
The prosecution alleges that James was required to occupy and use the property as her secondary residence, not as a rental investment property, in order to secure a favourable loan.
Prosecutors allege she saved $18,933 (£14,229) through this “misrepresentation”, including by securing a lower interest rate.
“No one is above the law,” US Department of Justice attorney Lindsey Halligan said in a statement.
James has previously said she made an error while filling out paperwork for the property, which was then corrected. She has called the charges “baseless” and has taken aim directly at Trump.
“He is forcing federal law enforcement agencies to do his bidding, all because I did my job as the New York State attorney general,” she said.
James’s attorney Abbe Lowell later said she would “fight these charges in every process allowed in the law”. Lowell added: “We are deeply concerned that this case is driven by President Trump’s desire for revenge.”
Who else is Trump pursuing – and what’s the background?
Legal action against James had been expected, after Trump named her in a list of political opponents he wanted his administration to legally pursue.
“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” the president wrote last month in a Truth Social post.
“They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!)” he said of those opponents.
Former FBI director James Comey and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff were also mentioned in Trump’s post.
Within a few days, Mr Comey was charged with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing a congressional proceeding. He has pleaded not guilty.
The bank fraud case against James was floated publicly in April, when a letter penned by the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) was obtained by US media. It said the FHFA had made a criminal referral to the justice department, alleging James had falsified her bank and property records.
Trump’s case hit a bump when the lawyer overseeing federal prosecutions in the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert, resigned in September.
Although Siebert did not provide a reason for quitting, Trump said he was “fired” after he said “we had no case” against James.
Trump appointed to the position his former personal lawyer Lindsey Halligan – who is accused by James of being “blindly loyal not to the law, but to the president”.
What happened in James’s case against Trump?
Getty ImagesTrump and James have stared each other down in court before.
James launched a civil fraud case against Trump and his company in 2022.
The court found the following year that Trump had been liable for overstating the value of his business assets to obtain favourable loans.
Throughout the trial, Trump denied wrongdoing and repeatedly referred to the case as a “witch hunt”.
Following a ruling ordering Trump to pay $500m (£375m), James said: “Today, we prove that no one is above the law. No matter how rich, powerful, or politically connected you are.”
But Trump appealed against the ruling, and in August 2025, a court threw out the $500m penalty against him, which the president called a “total victory”.
However, the same court upheld Trump’s fraud liability and did not throw out the non-financial penalties.
James’s office said it would appeal against the overturned penalty.
When did the feud between Trump and James begin?
Public scuffles between Trump and James stretch back to the 2018 contest for New York’s attorney general, which happened during Trump’s first term in the White House.
During her campaign to become the state’s top law enforcement officer, James called Trump an “illegitimate” president.
Trump was even mentioned during her victory speech on election night. “He [Trump] should know that we here in New York – and I, in particular – we are not scared of you,” she told cheering supporters.
James has also mocked Trump’s 1987 best-selling self-help book when describing his alleged fraud.
“Claiming that you have money that you do not have, does not amount to the Art of the Deal,” she said, referring to the book’s title. “It’s the art of the steal.”
The pair have sparred on social media for years, and Trump has responded to his opponent with name-calling.
National Guard members stand watch near the Lincoln Memorial on the morning of Memorial Day in Washington, DC, May 25, 2026.
Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images
President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has reduced petty property crimes, but has had little to no effect on violent crime, despite the high cost to taxpayers, according to a new analysis from the nonpartisan think tank Niskanen Center.
The study’s findings were published just weeks after federal officials announced that the number of troops in D.C. is set to double this summer to 5,000 as part of a “summer surge” of law enforcement ahead of events planned for America’s 250th birthday celebration.
Trump deployed the National Guard to D.C. last August, as part of the administration’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force, which he said was an effort to reduce crime and beautify the city. The task force includes hundreds of federal law enforcement — including immigration enforcement — working in conjunction with local police. It’s an approach that Trump previously said he wants to carry out in “many cities,” and already has in places like Memphis and New Orleans.
There are currently around 2,800 National Guard members deployed to D.C. from both the city itself and about a dozen other states, all of which have Republican governors. In contrast to other controversial National Guard deployments by Trump during his second term, the president has the authority over the Guard in D.C.
Guard members do not legally have the power to carry out arrests, but can detain individuals.
Troops — many of whom are armed — are largely carrying out what are called “high visibility patrols” to make their presence known around federal property and in residential areas, parks and city metro stations in an effort to free up D.C. police to redeploy to higher-crime areas. The report found that generally hasn’t happened.
Instead, researchers found that the deployment led to a 24% drop in “opportunistic” crimes — like property crimes and vehicle break-ins. But the presence of the Guard had no effect on violent crimes, including robberies, which were already on a downward trend before Trump came back into office.
“What the Guard brought was a massive, sudden shock from the visible presence of uniformed military personnel on the streets of Washington almost overnight,” researchers wrote, calling the deployment of the Guard a “blunt and expensive instrument.”
A recent assessment by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that it costs the federal government around $1.5 million per day for the current number of troops deployed to D.C.
“I think on balance the National Guard’s deployment is not a failure, there is success in what they’ve done. But I guess the point that we try to make is: compared to what?” says Richard Hahn, one of the authors of the study. “You could get the same or better outcomes, possibly much better outcomes, for much cheaper, if you just were very thoughtful about policing.”
In response to NPR’s request for comment about the study, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said that it “should not be taken seriously.”
“The President’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force and National Guard presence have driven down crime, beautified the city, and improved quality of life for countless individuals,” Jackson said, without providing any evidence.
It’s unclear when the planned “summer surge” would end, or if the number of National Guard troops in the city would return to their current levels in the fall.
“Our message today is that we’re not done. We are not satisfied. We are not content with good. We are coming for perfection, and we won’t be done until we reclaim every last inch of ground on anyone seeking to do harm in our nation’s capital,” Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald said when announcing the surge.
NPR reached out to task force officials behind the Guard deployment for clarity on when the surge might start or end, but did not receive an immediate response.
Vote
Total
Democrats
Republicans
215
211
4
208
0
208
The House on Wednesday passed a measure to direct President Trump withdraw U.S. forces from Iran or win congressional approval to continue military operations there. The vote was the fourth of its kind in the chamber since the war began, the previous three having failed.
A vote on this measure was originally scheduled for last month but was pulled by House Republican leaders after it became clear they lacked the votes at the time to defeat it because of several members’ absences. Several Republicans were also absent on Wednesday, but party leaders were unable to delay the vote any longer.
Votes fell mostly along party lines, with the exception of four Republicans, who voted with Democrats to pass the measure. Representative Jared Golden, Democrat of Maine, who had previously voted with Republicans, flipped and voted with his party.
Republicans who voted against their party
The House vote came after four Senate Republicans last month broke from their party to advance a measure to assert the legislature’s role in authorizing the war. The Senate had rejected seven other similar measures, but Republicans in both chambers have expressed increased uneasiness with the conflict as it wears on.
Even if a war powers resolution passed in both the House and Senate, it would be subject to an all-but-certain veto by Mr. Trump, which would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. Beyond that, the president and his senior aides have frequently dismissed efforts by Congress to rein in his war powers, saying they are unconstitutional.
How Every Member Voted
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
Did not vote
Did not vote
Did not vote Did not vote
Did not vote
Did not vote
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Did not vote
Republicans
Member
Answer
Democrats
Member
Answer
Washington — The House on Wednesday passed a measure that would force President Trump to end the war with Iran without congressional authorization, marking the first time the lower chamber has defied the White House on the conflict.
The House voted 215 to 208 to approve the war powers resolution with the help of four Republicans. Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, who has voted against the three previous failed attempts, also dropped his opposition and voted for the measure, giving his party unanimity on the issue.
Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted with Democrats in favor of the measure.
Democrats in the chamber erupted in applause after passage.
The vote was supposed to take place before lawmakers left for the Memorial Day recess, but House GOP leaders abruptly pulled the vote when it became clear they did not have the numbers to block it. Several Republicans were absent and others were expected to support it.
The Senate advanced a similar measure in May to rein in Mr. Trump on Iran after four Republicans joined all but one Democrat to push it forward. Three Republican absences also helped deliver the breakthrough after seven previous unsuccessful votes.
But the Senate’s procedural vote was just the first step on the way to potential passage, and Republicans will have another opportunity to block it in the coming days.
It’s unclear when they plan to vote on the House version. In a statement, House Democratic leaders called on Senate Republicans “to do the right thing.”
Support for the war from some Republicans waned after the conflict passed a statutory 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the president must remove armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not authorized the war. The war passed the deadline on May 1, but the administration has argued that a fragile ceasefire stopped the clock in early April, though both sides have carried out attacks since then.
The Trump administration has also argued the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional, though that theory has never been tested in court.
Republicans who have voted in favor of limiting Mr. Trump’s military powers in Iran have been uncomfortable with the lack of congressional authorization on the war and a strategy to end it. Some fear the war’s unpopularity and the economic fallout could harm the GOP’s chances at keeping control of Congress after the midterm elections in November.
GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson of Iowa, who is running for Senate, said in a private exchange at a campaign stop last week that the war could be a “political liability” if it continues beyond “the next couple of weeks,” according to audio obtained by CBS News.
But Mr. Trump said last month he was in “no hurry” to make a deal with Iran ahead of the midterms.
“Everybody’s saying, ‘Oh, the midterms, I’m in a hurry.’ I’m in no hurry,” he said.
The resolution approved Wednesday was introduced in April by Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It directs the president “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran,” unless Congress declares war or authorizes the use of military force.
Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, earlier Wednesday called it a “stupid political vote” that “weakens the president’s hands as he’s negotiating with Iran.”
After the vote, Meeks brushed off the assertion that the war powers votes have undercut the president during negotiations with Iran. When asked whether Democrats would keep forcing votes to end the Iran war, Meeks told reporters, “You can expect us to continue to do our jobs.”
“We’re going to continue to do our constitutional responsibilities,” he said.
Fitzpatrick, who also voted in favor of a war powers resolution in May, said, “The law is the law.”
“We have to follow the law. There’s a law on the books,” Fitzpatrick said. “So you have two choices: You either follow the law or you change the law. You can’t violate the law. That’s not an option.”
During floor debate on the measure on May 20, Democrats questioned why Republicans haven’t held a vote on an authorization for military force to provide Mr. Trump with legal guardrails for attacking Iran.
“If my Republican colleagues believe this is justified, they should bring an AUMF to the floor,” Meeks said.
There’s been little momentum so far behind an AUMF introduced by Barrett earlier in May.
Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, an independent who caucuses with Republicans, argued there are “better tools” for Congress to assert its authority.
“We actually have the ability to provide direction as to how funds should be used,” Kiley said, referring to Congress’ power of the purse. “I understand why people want to use whatever tools are available, but I believe that Congress should use those tools of congressional oversight and the powers we have under Article I that really have teeth here.”
-
Technology7 minutes agoAmazon develops a warehouse robot workers can speak to
-
World10 minutes agoAlbino buffalo nicknamed ‘Donald Trump’ becomes sensation at Bangladesh’s national zoo for its blond hair
-
Politics15 minutes agoThe growing list of controversies threatening Democrat Graham Platner’s Maine Senate bid
-
Health22 minutes agoNew cancer vaccine delivers stunning result against one of the deadliest skin cancers
-
Sports25 minutes agoFan disrupts NBA Finals Game 1 while trying to take selfie with Spurs’ Victor Wembanyama
-
Business37 minutes agoHow Google’s 32-million mosquito project could change California’s battle against dengue
-
Entertainment39 minutes agoAfter ‘Barbie’ success, Mattel looks to He-Man for another box-office lift
-
Lifestyle45 minutes agoWith Highway 1 open, Big Sur braces for its busiest summer in years
