Politics
U.S. Tells Court It Plans to Deport Scientist to Russia
Government lawyers told a federal judge on Wednesday that the Trump administration intends to deport a Harvard scientist back to Russia, a country she fled in 2022, despite her fear that she will be arrested there over her protest of Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Kseniia Petrova, a researcher at Harvard Medical School, has been held in a Louisiana immigration detention facility since February, when she was detained at Boston’s airport for failing to declare scientific samples she was carrying in her luggage.
This is the first time the government has formally stated its plan to deport her to Russia.
In Wednesday’s hearing, Christina Reiss, chief judge of the United States District Court in Vermont, quizzed the government lawyers about their grounds for canceling Ms. Petrova’s visa and detaining her. Judge Reiss went on to schedule a bail hearing on May 28, potentially setting the stage for Ms. Petrova’s release.
The case has drawn the attention of elite scientists around the world, and sent a chill though the community of international academics that surrounded Ms. Petrova at Harvard. Several dozen Harvard students and faculty made the drive to Burlington, Vt., for the hearing.
“For every person that they detain, thousands of others are going to be scared of coming to the country,” said Leo Gerdén, a Harvard senior from Sweden.
Ms. Petrova was detained at Logan Airport on Feb. 16 as she returned from vacation in France, carrying with her sections of frog embryos from an affiliate laboratory, at the request of her supervisor at Harvard.
She has admitted that she failed to declare the samples, but her lawyer has argued that this would ordinarily be treated as a minor infraction, punishable with a fine. Instead, the customs official canceled Ms. Petrova’s J-1 visa on the spot and initiated deportation proceedings.
When Ms. Petrova explained that she had fled her native Russia for political reasons and could not return there, she was processed as an asylum seeker, and sent to Richwood Correctional Center in Monroe, La., where she has remained for nearly three months.
In remarks from the bench, Judge Reiss seemed skeptical that the airport customs agent had possessed the authority to cancel Ms. Petrova’s visa.
“Where is that authority?” she asked. “Where does a customs and border patrol officer have the authority on his or her own to revoke a visa?” she said. “It’s got to be somewhere. Because there is no way that person has kind of an unlimited determination.”
The judge noted that the she had reviewed the statute laying out the grounds for customs officers to find someone inadmissible to the United States, and “I don’t see anything about customs violations.”
Jeffrey M. Hartman, an attorney representing the Department of Justice, said “it’s the secretary of state’s authority” to cancel a visa, and that the secretary has delegated that authority to customs officials.
Judge Reiss asked the government to clarify whether or not it planned to deport Ms. Petrova to Russia.
“You are asking for her removal to Russia?” she asked.
“Yes, your honor,” Mr. Hartman replied.
Ms. Petrova’s attorney filed a petition challenging her detention with the federal court in February, when she was held briefly at a Vermont detention center before being transferred to the immigration detention center in Louisiana.
Mr. Hartman argued that the federal court had no jurisdiction over Ms. Petrova’s detention. He said Ms. Petrova may contest her detention, but only in a Louisiana immigration court.
“It’s not something that a district court can entertain,” he said. “We think the proper venue for that question is Louisiana, where she is detained and where her custodian is.”
“But she is only detained there because you moved her,” said the judge.
Mr. Hartman said that when Ms. Petrova had been asked whether she was carrying biological materials, that she “failed to disclose their full contents,” and was carrying “a baggie with loose vials of this experimental material.”
“The C.B.P. office was our first line of defense against unknown biological materials from a foreign national out of a port of entry,” he said.
Over the past few weeks, federal courts in Vermont have handed down a series of decisions favoring noncitizen academics caught up in President Trump’s immigration crackdown.
On May 9, Tufts doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk was released from detention on the orders of a judge, William K. Sessions III, who said that her continued detention could chill “the speech of the millions and millions of individuals in this country who are not citizens.”
And on April 30, Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford ordered the release of Mohsen Mahdawi, a student organizer at Columbia University who was detained by immigration authorities during an interview for his naturalization. Both Ms. Ozturk and Mr. Mahdawi were singled out because they had vocally protested Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.
Ms. Petrova’s case has no apparent basis in any political activism. But the attorney general of Massachusetts, Andrea Joy Campbell, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said Ms. Petrova’s detention, like that of Ms. Ozturk, represented “reckless and cruel misuse of power to punish and terrorize noncitizen members of the academic community.”
Ms. Campbell argued that international students bring significant revenue into Massachusetts, and that by creating “an atmosphere of fear,” the Trump administration has threatened the state’s economy.
Ms. Petrova’s attorney, Gregory Romanovsky, has argued that customs officials overstepped their authority by revoking her visa.
Though Customs officials may, in some cases, determine that an individual is inadmissible, he said, they must identify the legal grounds for doing so, such as criminal activity or health concerns. He said failing to declare scientific samples did not meet that test.
“It shouldn’t make her any more inadmissible than cutting in front of the line when she was waiting to be inspected,” Mr. Romanovsky said. “What the government is doing is saying, ‘If you’re an immigrant or a noncitizen and you’re not on your best behavior, we will punish you. We are going to use various immigration provisions to get rid of you.’ ”
Adam Sychla, a postdoctoral research fellow who organized a group of roughly 20 Harvard students and faculty members who traveled from Cambridge to the courthouse in Burlington, Vt., said he had never met Ms. Petrova, but had immediately decided to make the drive.
“Whether I know her personally or not, is immaterial,” he added. “I easily could have met her last week to start a collaboration. Instead, Kseniia is being unfairly detained.”
Miles J. Herszenhorn contributed reporting from Cambridge, Mass.
Politics
Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?
new video loaded: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?
By Ana Swanson, Nour Idriss, Nikolay Nikolov and James Surdam
May 15, 2026
Politics
Senator John Kennedy introduces America to ‘Margaret,’ his elliptical trainer named after Thatcher
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Margaret Thatcher once ran Britain. John Kennedy’s “Margaret” mostly runs him into the ground.
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., is going viral after posting a tongue-in-cheek workout video introducing followers to “Margaret” — his elliptical trainer named after former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — while wearing a red bandanna and speaking directly to the camera from his Louisiana carport.
“Hey X, I have somebody I’d like you to meet,” Kennedy says at the start of the minute-long video posted to social media Friday.
“This is Margaret. Margaret is my elliptical trainer. I named Margaret after Margaret Thatcher because both kick butt and take names.”
ERIC SWALWELL’S ‘CRINGE’ WORKOUT VIDEO MOCKED FOR BENCHING LIGHT WEIGHT
Senator John Kennedy, R-La., posted the video showing his unconventional at-home workout routine with elliptical “Margaret” to social media channels Friday. (@SenJohnKennedy via X)
Kennedy goes on to explain that “Margaret” lives outside under the carport for three reasons: the machine is too heavy to move, his wife “won’t let” him bring it inside and because he enjoys getting in a workout during Louisiana summers.
The Senator said he enjoys working outside during Louisiana summers, a detail that drew disbelief from many viewers familiar with the state’s famously brutal heat and humidity.
“As you can see, Margaret, my elliptical trainer, is out here under my carport in Louisiana,” Kennedy says. “After Margaret kicks my butt, I look for air conditioning.”
The surreal, self-aware clip quickly drew thousands of reactions online, with users roasting Kennedy’s bandanna look while also praising the senator’s everyman personality.
SEN KENNEDY PRAISES FETTERMAN AS A ‘TOTAL BANGER,’ WHO ‘DOESN’T GIVE A DAMN’ ABOUT ANGERING LIBERALS
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., talks to reporters in the basement of the U.S. Capitol on July 31, 2025, as Senate lawmakers work to finish legislative business before the August recess. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“You are rocking the dadgum crap outta that bandana,” one user wrote. “I thought you were representing the Bloods for a minute. Tell Margaret I think she’s cute but evil.”
Others praised Kennedy’s personality and down-home delivery style.
“You are a gem to us normal folk Mr. Kennedy. Live long and prosper!” one supporter posted.
“Senator Kennedy is that kind of Southerner that makes you feel you’re sitting on the front porch having some bit of common sense enlighten you in that poetic Southern way,” another wrote.
The Louisiana Republican has long cultivated a folksy, humorous public image that often breaks through online with colorful one-liners and unconventional social media moments.
Sen. John Kennedy speaks before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 21, 2022. (J. Scott Applewhite/Reuters)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Kennedy ended the video with a line that only added to the internet’s fascination.
“My work here is done,” he said. “And I can see myself out.”
Politics
Supreme Court turns away Virginia Democrats seeking to reinstate new voting map
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday turned down an appeal from Virginia Democrats whose new voter-approved state election map was canceled by the state’s Supreme Court.
The justices made no comment, and the legal outcome came as no surprise.
The U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to review or reverse rulings by state judges interpreting their state’s constitution — unless the decision turned on federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
But the Virginia ruling came as a political shock, particularly after 3 million voters had cast ballots and narrowly approved a new election map that would favor Democrats in 10 of its 11 congressional districts.
That would have represented an increase of four seats for Democrats in the House of Representatives.
Even worse for Democrats, the court setback in Virginia came a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling in a Louisiana case had bolstered Republicans.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices reinterpreted the Voting Rights Act and freed Republican-controlled states in the South to dismantle districts that were drawn to favor Black Democrats.
In the two weeks since then, the GOP has flipped seven districts in Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.
The Virginia Supreme Court decision pointed to a procedural flaw that turned on the definition of an “election.”
To amend the state Constitution, Virginia lawmakers must adopt the proposal twice — once before a “general election” and a second time after the election. It is then submitted to the voters.
Last fall, Democrats proposed to amend the state Constitution to permit a mid-decade redistricting.
However, by a 4-3 vote, the state justices said the General Assembly flubbed the first approval because it took place on Oct. 31 of last year, just five days before the election.
By then, they said, about 40% of the voters had cast early ballots.
In defense of the Legislature, the state’s attorneys said the proposed amendment was approved before election day, which complies with the state Constitution.
But the majority explained “the noun ‘election’ must be distinguished from the noun phrase ‘election day.’ ”
It reasoned that because early voters had already cast ballots before the constitutional amendment was first adopted, the proposal was not approved before the election.
The dissenters said the election took place on “election day” and the proposal had been adopted before that time.
The state’s lawyers adopted that view in their appeal and argued that under federal law, the election takes place on election day.
But the Supreme Court turned away the appeal with no comment.
The result is that a state amendment that won approval twice before both houses of the Legislature and in a statewide vote was judged to have failed.
The state says it will use the current map, which had elected Democrats to the House in six districts and Republicans in five.
-
Wisconsin6 minutes agoWisconsin severe thunderstorm watch into Saturday morning
-
West Virginia12 minutes agoWVWC hosts 50th West Virginia State Mathematics Field Day
-
Wyoming18 minutes agoColorado resident killed in crash near Cheyenne
-
Crypto24 minutes agoCoinbase Co-Founder Meets with US and Venezuelan Officials in Major Investment Push
-
Finance29 minutes agoCrystal City ISD laying off 25% of staff amid financial crisis
-
Fitness36 minutes ago‘I’m a neuroscientist – these are the 3 best workouts for slowing cognitive decline’
-
Movie Reviews48 minutes agoKaruppu (Veerabhadrudu) Movie Review – Gulte
-
World60 minutes ago
Supreme Court rejects Virginia’s bid to restore congressional map favoring Democrats