Ghana says African immigrants deported by the US have returned home

Published

3 hours ago

September 16, 2025

ACCRA, Ghana (AP) — Authorities in Ghana pushed back Tuesday on claims that four African immigrants recently deported by the U.S. remain in Ghanaian detention, reiterating their assertion that all such migrants have been returned to their home countries.

The government said Monday that all 14 of the deportees had been returned to their countries of origin in West Africa. On Tuesday, Ghana’s presidential spokesperson Felix Kwakye Ofosu said in an interview with The Associated Press that 13 Nigerians were sent home on a bus and that one Gambian was sent home on a plane.

Lawyers for four of the Nigerians said in U.S. court filings Monday and in interviews with the AP that the four were still being held in a facility in Ghana. The lawyers said the Nigerians faced persecution in their home country, but a judge rejected their request for a court order to return them to the U.S., though she expressed alarm over the deportations.

The Ghanaian government spokesperson denied knowledge of such a facility. “None of them are staying in this country. Nobody is being held in any camp and nobody’s right has been abused,” Ofosu said of the deportees in a phone interview.

The AP could not independently verify the current location of the deportees. However, a lawyer for the Gambian individual, from a different law firm, confirmed that their client was in Gambia.

Nigerian and Gambian government officials told the AP they were neither notified about the deportations nor involved in the process.

US judge won’t intervene in the deportations

Meanwhile, a U.S. judge said that she was powerless to prevent Ghana from returning deportees in its custody to their home countries, declining to intervene in the case, in a victory for the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said that although five of the African deportees had been barred from being sent directly from the U.S. to their home countries because of a likelihood of persecution, her “hands are tied” once they are in Ghana.

Still, she said that the deportations appeared to be against an international treaty on torture, saying she was “alarmed and dismayed” by the “government’s cavalier acceptance of Plaintiffs’ ultimate transfer to countries where they face torture and persecution.”

Chutkan distinguished it from the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deemed by courts to have been wrongly sent by the administration to a prison in his native El Salvador. In the Africa case, unlike in Abrego Garcia, she wrote, the administration could legally send the deportees to Ghana.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Trump administration has been seeking ways to deter immigrants from entering the U.S. illegally and remove those who already have done so, especially those accused of crimes and including those who cannot easily be deported to their home countries.

The administration, faced with court decisions that people can’t be sent back to their home countries, has increasingly been trying to send them to third countries under agreements with those governments.

Ghana has joined Eswatini, Rwanda and South Sudan as African countries that have received migrants from third countries who were deported from the U.S.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of some of the migrants said they were held in “straitjackets” for 16 hours on a flight to Ghana on Sept. 5 and detained for days in “squalid conditions” after they arrived there. It said Ghana was doing the Trump administration’s “dirty work.”

——

Riccardi reported from Colorado and Asadu from Dakar, Senegal. Associated Press writer Abdoulie John in Banjul, Gambia, contributed.

Source link

Up Next

This Liquid Glass Optical Illusion on iOS 26 Is Driving Me Insane

Don't Miss

Robert Redford, giant of American cinema, dies aged 89 | Robert Redford

Nicholas Riccardi

Click to comment

Trump files $15 billion lawsuit against New York Times over campaign coverage

Published

1 hour ago

September 16, 2025

Joe Kottke

President Donald Trump on Monday filed a federal defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, four of its reporters and Penguin Random House over coverage of his 2024 campaign.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which covers the area where Trump resides outside the White House, accused the newspaper of attempting to ruin his reputation as a businessman, sink his campaign and prejudice judges and juries against him in coverage of his campaign.

The reporters and defendants are Susanne Craig, Russ Buettner, Peter Baker, and Michael S. Schmidt. Penguin Random House published a book by Craig and Buettner titled “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success.”

The newspaper, the suit alleges, “continued spreading false and defamatory content about President Trump” and refused to recognize he “secured the greatest personal and political achievement in American history” with his 2024 win.

The suit singles out a New York Times editorial endorsing Democratic opponent Kamala Harris.

“The [editorial] Board asserted hypocritically and without evidence that President Trump would ‘defy the norms and dismantle the institutions that have made our country strong,'” the suit states.

It also points to three long-form articles in 2024 by the paper’s reporters named in the filing challenging narratives on Trump’s success as a businessman, looking at past scandals and analyzing his character as one that could move the Oval Office toward dictatorship.

“Today, the Times is a full-throated mouthpiece for the Democrat Party,” the filing alleges. “The newspaper’s editorial routine is now one of industrial-scale defamation and libel against political opponents. As such, the Times has become a leading, and unapologetic purveyor of falsehoods against President Trump.”

The New York Times said the suit is without merit.

“It lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting,” a spokesperson for the New York Times said in a statement Tuesday. “The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics. We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists’ First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people.”

Penguin Random House and the reporters named in the suit did immediately responded to requests for comment early Tuesday.

The suit includes letters sent by Trump’s lawyers to the New York Times and Penguin Random House in October, along with responses from the two media organizations’ lawyers. The letter to the Times demanded it cease and desist from making “false and defamatory statements” about the president, while listing a litany of complaints about Times coverage.

Newsroom lawyer David McCraw responded by defending the reporting in articles mentioned by Trump’s lawyers.

“Little needs to be said about the rest of your letter, which is principally a litany of personal complaints about The New York Times and its reporters, punctuated with falsehoods and premised on the deeply troubling notion that anyone who dares to report unfavorable facts about a presidential candidate is engaged in “sabotage” (as opposed to, say, contributing to the free exchange of information and ideas that makes our democracy possible),” McCraw wrote, according to the letter attached to Monday’s suit.

Carolyn K. Foley, Penguin Random House senior vice president and associate general counsel, responded to Trump lawyer Edward Andrew Paltzik: “The fact that the authors of the book do not share your favorable view of your client’s career, does not provide the foundation for a defamation claim.”

Monday’s filing seeks no less than $15 billion in compensatory damages for the alleged defamation, as well as unspecified punitive damages.

The reporters Schmidt, Craig and Baker have been contributors to MSNBC and NBC News.

ABC and Paramount, the parent company of CBS, have settled lawsuits brought by Trump and the president launched a new one against the Wall Street Journal and its ownership in July.

Source link

Tyler Robinson charged with aggravated murder

Published

2 hours ago

September 16, 2025

Kevin Breuninger

Utah County Attorney Jeffrey S. Gray speaks during a press conference about the charges and next steps in the case of Tyler Robinson, who is suspected of fatally shooting U.S. right-wing activist and commentator Charlie Kirk, an ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, in Provo, Utah, U.S., Sept. 16, 2025.

Jim Urquhart | Reuters

Utah prosecutors on Tuesday charged Tyler Robinson with aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and several other counts in the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray said he intends to seek the death penalty in the case.

“I do not take this decision lightly, and it is a decision I have made independently as county attorney based solely on the available evidence and circumstances and nature of the crime,” Gray said at a press conference to announce the charges and detail early evidence in the investigation.

Gray said Robinson was identified as a suspect in part because his family recognized him in photos released after Kirk was killed,

“Robinson’s mother expressed concern to her husband that the suspect shooter looked like Robinson,” and Robinson’s father agreed, Gray said.

Robinson’s mother also told investigators that “over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political and had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro gay and trans rights oriented,” Gray said.

Robinson’s mother also told police that said her son, “began to date his roommate, a biological male who was transitioning genders.”

Gray also read text messages that were allegedly exchanged between Robinson and his roommate following Kirk’s shooting. They included several which contained romantic sentiments.

CNBC has not independently verified the content of messages, and Gray was uncertain whether Robinson had a lawyer to represent him yet.

Booking photo of Tyler Robinson

Courtesy: Utah Governor’s Office

Robinson, 22, has been held in jail without bail since his arrest early Friday morning, less than two days after Kirk was shot during a crowded political event at Utah Valley University.

Robinson, a Utah resident, is scheduled to appear virtually for his initial court appearance at 5 p.m. ET.

Speaking at the press conference, Gray described a wide array of evidence that he said tied Robinson to Kirk’s shooting.

This included text messages between Robinson and his roommate, interviews with the suspect’s family and DNA that was allegedly a match to Robinson’.

Kirk’s death has gripped the nation, and generated a broad swath of highly charged reactions from across American society. Many of Kirk’s friends and political allies have felt intense grief, and politicians across the aisle have issued forceful condemnations of political violence.

Arizonans mourn Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk outside of the Turning Point USA headquarters on Sept. 12, 2025 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Charly Triballeau | AFP | Getty Images

But some, including President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, have blamed the “radical left” for the killing, while signaling plans to crack down on groups aligned with the ideology.

Meanwhile, some on the left who criticized Kirk’s right-wing politics while he was alive have continued to do so following his murder, stoking outrage from the activist’s supporters.

This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.

Further Extending the TikTok Enforcement Delay – The White House

Published

2 hours ago

September 16, 2025

The Editors

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Extension. (a) The enforcement delay specified in section 2(a) of Executive Order 14166 of January 20, 2025 (Application of Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act to TikTok), as extended by Executive Order 14258 of April 4, 2025 (Extending the TikTok Enforcement Delay), and Executive Order 14310 of June 19, 2025 (Further Extending the TikTok Enforcement Delay), is further extended until December 16, 2025. During this period, the Department of Justice shall take no action to enforce the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the “Act”) (Public Law 118-50, Div. H) or impose any penalties against any entity for any noncompliance with the Act, including for distributing, maintaining, or updating (or enabling the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) any foreign adversary controlled application as defined in the Act. In light of this direction, even after the expiration of the above-specified period, the Department of Justice shall not take any action to enforce the Act or impose any penalties against any entity for any conduct that occurred during the above-specified period or any period prior to the issuance of this order, including the period of time from January 19, 2025, until the date of this order.

(b) The Attorney General shall take all appropriate action to issue written guidance to implement the provisions of subsection (a) of this section.

(c) The Attorney General shall further issue a letter to each provider stating that there has been no violation of the statute and that there is no liability for any conduct that occurred during the above-specified period, as well as for any conduct from the effective date of the Act until the date of this order.

(d) Because of the national security interests at stake and because section 2(d) of the Act vests authority for investigations and enforcement of the Act only in the Attorney General, attempted enforcement by the States or private parties represents an encroachment on the powers of the Executive. The Attorney General shall exercise all available authority to preserve and defend the Executive’s exclusive authority to enforce the Act.

Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Justice.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

September 16, 2025.

Source link