

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Nearly two years after Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington (CREW) sued the Bush White House for both its refusal to
restore the millions of missing White House emails and its failure to
put in place an effective electronic record keeping system, the White
House has finally released documents that support CREW's allegations.
The documents, released after negotiations with the current
administration, represent only a small percentage of the promised
records, and appear to be part of a set of documents already provided
to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in 2007 and 2008.
Nearly two years after Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington (CREW) sued the Bush White House for both its refusal to
restore the millions of missing White House emails and its failure to
put in place an effective electronic record keeping system, the White
House has finally released documents that support CREW's allegations.
The documents, released after negotiations with the current
administration, represent only a small percentage of the promised
records, and appear to be part of a set of documents already provided
to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in 2007 and 2008.
These documents confirm Bush White House officials knew they were
failing to properly archive records and made several attempts to
develop an email archiving system. Although some officials described
the development of such a system as a "number 1 priority," the efforts
were either unsuccessful or abandoned for unexplained reasons. The
documents make clear some administration officials were aware of the
problem as early as February 2004, when the White House was attempting
to respond to an unidentified grand jury subpoena from the Justice
Department.
The documents confirm that in October 2005, the White House
discovered millions of emails had disappeared. The documents also show
that emails Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald had subpoenaed in
connection with the Valerie Plame Wilson leak investigation were
missing from Vice President Cheney's office.
In providing these documents to CREW and the National Security
Archive (which brought a separate lawsuit now consolidated with
CREW's), the Obama administration marked some of the documents
"sensitive," and therefore not subject to public disclosure, and
redacted the identities and contact information of virtually all
individuals named in the documents.
Many questions remain and the White House has promised to release
more documents shortly. For example, there are approximately 38 boxes
of documents the administration plans to review for disclosure. These
boxes contain records related to the White House's discovery of the
missing email problem as well as proposals to address the issue and
implement effective electronic recordkeeping. CREW is also awaiting
documents regarding the limited effort to restore some of the missing
emails that was begun by the Bush White House and is continuing. CREW
anticipates these additional documents will fill in more of the blanks
and will inform the public whether the White House is finally on the
right track with its electronic record keeping practices.
The documents released so far address the following key subjects:
* The Bush Administration's repeated attempts to develop a system to
archive Microsoft Outlook emails. In 2002, the White House began
converting from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook/Exchange for its
email, and needed a system to preserve the Microsoft-based email. The
documents include proposals and a "statement of work" for a pilot
project to make the emails compatible with the Automatic Records
Management System (ARMS), the system used since 1994 to preserve White
House emails. OAP00000011, OAP00000025, OAP00000040, OAP00000056. But, as other records confirm, this system was never fully built. OAP00000083, OAP00000399.
* The Electronic Communication Records Management System (ECRMS), a
plan to develop a longer-term solution for email. The contracts include
one for Booz Allen Hamilton, which was selected to build the system. OAP00000386.
For unexplained reasons, the Department of the Interior's Mineral
Management Service issued the contract documents and received all
invoices, even though the system was to be delivered to the White
House's Office of Administration (OA). OAP00000386.
One May 2006 email discusses plans to put ECRMS into production,
stating ECRMS was OA's "number 1 priority," and "the most important
system that we have implemented in a long time, we need to get it
right." OAP00000719. Yet the Bush White House never implemented this plan as well.
* The Bush Administration was aware of problems with email
preservation at least as early as February 2004. The documents include
a "post-mortem" analysis by Microsoft of problems with searching for
emails in response to a January 2004 grand jury subpoena that stated
"there is no current mechanism to transfer Exchange email into ARMS,"
and the plan for doing so "is not yet a stable and consistent solution"
that "fails to consistently" move data into ARMS. OAP00000083
.
* The White House's discovery that millions of emails were missing
from its electronic files, and its attempt to address the problem,
comprise the bulk of the documents. They confirm the White House's
discovery of an investigation into the missing emails in October 2005.
Several documents from that period reflect a tabulation of White House
email files, called PST files. Those documents indicate there were a
total of 5,397 PST files, but 20 files were "missing" and 19 more were
"empty." OAP00000500.
The White House was unable to determine which White House component
(i.e., the Office of the Vice President, the Office and Management and
Budget, and the Council on Environmental Quality) was associated with
more than 1,000 files. OAP00000486, OAP00000500.
Others emails indicate PST files from August 10 through October 4, 2005
for separate White House components had been combined into a single
file due to an "inadvertent" change. OAP00000167.
Perhaps as a result of these problems White House appears to have
temporarily stopped creating PST files for at least a week. OAP00000379.
* The Office of the Vice President (OVP) had particular problems
with missing emails. Several of the documents discuss copying and
conducting a manual review of more than 200 PST files from OVP. OAP00000377, OAP00000741, OAP00000790, OAP00001411, OAP00001415.
This review may have led to the creation of a spreadsheet compiling
information about the OVP PST files, which showed gaps in the dates of
preserved messages preserved. OAP00000778.
One of those gaps was from at least October 1-3, 2003, a period for
which Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald sought email during his
investigation of the leaks that led the disclosure of Valerie Plame's
identity. OAP00000377.
* The documents show that during this period, the White House
initiated a "component by component analysis" to find the missing
emails. OAP00001387.
This apparently resulted in a series of scans that output the total
number of messages in each PST file, and the number of emails from each
date. OAP00000803, OAP00000842, OAP00001096, OAP00000903, OAP00000999, OAP00001158, OAP00001173, OAP00001176, OAP00001179, OAP00001182, OAP00001192, OAP00001229, OAP00001314, OAP00001350.
One email states every source file was covered, except for 30 OVP files
(it is not clear why), with 19 files that had no message count. OAP00001407.
In February 2006, the White House completed an analysis of all the
missing emails, and concluded there were 473 days on which there were
no messages preserved, and 229 days on which the number preserved was
suspiciously low. A chart of this analysis was released by House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee in February 2008. https://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080227155329.pdf. It is not clear if the documents provided by the White House to CREW and NSA were used in the creation of this chart.
* Some of the problems with the email preservation system were
summarized in a November 14, 2005 memorandum from Steven McDevitt,
Director of the Architecture and Engineering Directorate, to John
Straub, Acting Chief Information Officer. OAP00000399.
(An unredacted copy of this memo was published by the House Oversight
and Government Affairs Committee, but the one provided by the White
House blacks out the names of Mr. McDevitt and Mr. Straub in most
places.) The memo states the "current email archive process depends on
manual operations and monitoring, standard operating procedures do not
exist, automated tools that support the email archive process are not
robust, and there is no dedicated archive storage location. As a result
the current process and lack of storage management limitations result
in potential loss of emails. Lost or misplaced email archives in turn
result in an inability to meet statutory requirements."
* Mr. McDevitt was attempting to obtain approval for a new standard
operating procedure for archiving Microsoft Outlook/Exchange email, and
implementation of ECRMS as a long-term solution.
* The increased scrutiny may have led to the discovery of other
problems. For instance, one email discusses "unauthorized actions" that
were still taking place, OAP00000374,
and another asks for an "emergency change" to allow a program to be run
daily that collected attributes of files so that PSTs can be monitored
and tracked better, OAP00001413.
* A few documents from January and February 2006 appear to relate to
the recovery of some OVP PST files that needed to be searched. One
email instructs the recipient to being the three phase project for
restoring OVP email from 14 or 15 days in December 2003 and
January-February 2004. OAP00001392.
* In June 2007, the White House issued a "Request for Quote" to
install, configure, and test a new pilot electronic records management
system using a product made by EMC. EOP0000127.
The proposed contract calls for an "aggressive" six-week time frame for
the project, which would not include rolling out the system for all
1,800 users. CREW understands this system was not implemented during
the last administration. In addition, an undated "limited source
justification" appears to contemplate awarding a sole source contract
to EMC to acquire software and to configure, implement, and install an
"enterprise wide Records Management (RM) system." EOP0000156.
* Other documents provide a limited amount of information about the
present system. One, titled "EMC Messaging - Messaging Current Product
Compatibility Guide," describes certain email preservation products and
their compatibility with other software. EOP0000227.
Another is a "Request for Information" to obtain information about the
deployment of "an operational and improved electronic Records
Management (eRM) for email-records program for The Executive Office of
the President." EOP0000285.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to promoting ethics and accountability in government and public life by targeting government officials -- regardless of party affiliation -- who sacrifice the common good to special interests. CREW advances its mission using a combination of research, litigation and media outreach.
Kenya's largest medical professionals union, which welcomed the ruling, argued that if setting up an Ebola quarantine facility "is too dangerous for America, it is too dangerous for Kenya."
A day after US officials said Kenya had approved a request to open a quarantine center for Americans exposed to a rare strain of the Ebola virus, a court in the East African nation on Friday temporarily blocked the plan amid a growing outbreak in neighboring Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The High Court prohibited the Kenyan government from establishing or operating any Ebola exposure, quarantine, isolation, or treatment facility in the country under any agreement with the United States or any other foreign government or agency.
The court also blocked Kenya's government from allowing anyone infected with or exposed to Ebola into the country pending the outcome of the case, which was filed by the Katiba Institute, a civil rights group.
“At its core, the case is about preserving constitutional accountability, protecting public health, and ensuring that no government may place expediency above the lives and safety of the people of Kenya,” Katiba Institute executive director Nora Mbagathi said Thursday.
A 50-bed Ebola quarantine center was set to open Friday at Laikipia Air Base in Nanyuki, located approximately 125 miles north of Nairobi. The facility would have been operated by members of the US Public Health Service, a uniformed branch of the Department of Health and Human Services.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday during a Cabinet meeting that “we cannot and will not allow any cases of Ebola to enter the United States."
However, US public health officials strongly criticized the plan to quarantine Americans in Kenya instead of repatriating them, with one emergency physician accusing the Trump administration of “a dramatic abdication of what we owe our own."
Elected leaders in Laikipia County welcomed the High Court's ruling. They had opposed the US quarantine center, and had asked in a joint statement prior to the decision, "Why Laikipia?"
"What does the US government know about this that they are not accepting their own affected citizens into their soil but are ready to have them elsewhere?"
The Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists, and Dentists Union (KMPDU), which had strongly opposed the quarantine center and had threatened to strike, also welcomed the High Court ruling.
"We are utterly disgusted by the government’s apparent willingness to trade national biosecurity and the lives of its citizens for foreign aid," KMPDU secretary general Davji Bhimji Attelah said in a statement Thursday, referring to the $13.5 million the Trump administration pledged for Ebola preparedness in Kenya, part of a broader $125 million US commitment toward fighting the disease.
Kenyan healthcare workers are pushing back hard against reported plans for the U.S. to establish Ebola quarantine/treatment facilities in Kenya for exposed American personnel during the ongoing Bundibugyo Ebola outbreak in Central/East Africa.
[image or embed]
— BK. Titanji (@boghuma.bsky.social) May 28, 2026 at 11:31 AM
"We will not sit back and watch Kenya be treated as a containment colony for a lethal pathogen that we did not generate," Attelah added. “We will not tolerate an apartheid healthcare model on Kenyan soil. If it is too dangerous for America, it is too dangerous for Kenya."
Critics say President Donald Trump’s ideologically driven decision to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization (WHO), his administration’s dismantling of the US Agency for International Development, and reduced funding for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s global public health efforts have adversely affected the response to the current Ebola epidemic, compared with 2014 and 2019 outbreaks.
The WHO said Friday that there were a total of 906 suspected Ebola cases and 223 suspected deaths reported in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as of Wednesday, and 125 confirmed cases in the DRC and 9 in Uganda, with 18 deaths among the confirmed cases in both countries.
Ebola—which typically kills between 25% and 90% of infected people, depending upon the strain of the virus and quality of available medical care—causes widespread and often catastrophic damage to the body’s blood vessels, immune system, and organs. The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals, including fruit bats, porcupines, and non-human primates, and then spreads between humans through direct contact with the blood or bodily fluids of infected people.
The average US household, according to Moody's, has shouldered nearly $450 in extra fuel costs due to the Republican president's unprovoked Middle East war.
Americans have made clear since President Donald Trump joined Israel in beginning an unprovoked war on Iran that they view the conflict-of-choice as damaging to their financial well-being—and that they blame the president for the higher cost of fuel since the war started in February.
On Friday, Moody's Analytics put an exact number on the heightened financial anxiety families across the country have been feeling over the past three months as Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent fuel prices soaring: $447.19.
That's how much the average US household has had to additionally spend on fuel-related expenses since Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyanu launched their attack on February 28, Moody's told CNBC.
Altogether, Americans have spent a total of nearly $60 billion on gas, airline fares, and other related costs as the strait, a key shipping route for oil, has remained effectively closed.
According to AAA, the average price of a gallon of regular gas stands at $4.39—up close to 50% since early March. Diesel now costs $5.52 per gallon, forcing consumers to pay $20 billion more in additional expenses on groceries and other goods.
"The economy isn’t just soft, it’s struggling," Mark Zandi, Moody's chief economist, said Thursday. "The Iran war needs to end, and the Strait of Hormuz needs to be reopened soon, or recession will become more likely than not."
"Unless the war ends soon, financially pressed consumers will have no option but to turn more cautious in their spending."
As CNBC reported Friday, "higher energy costs can force consumers to raid their savings and lean more on debt to cover expenses."
Trump flatly said earlier this month that he doesn't consider Americans' financial situation "even a little bit" when it comes to the war on Iran, while National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett posited earlier this week that Americans are "spending more money" not because higher prices are forcing them to but because they're "very, very optimistic about the state of the economy." He also bragged recently that "credit card spending is through the roof"—a sign several observers took not as a positive omen for the economy but as a sign that families are being forced to take on debt to pay for gas and other essentials.
Zandi provided a reality check Friday.
"Unless the war ends soon, financially pressed consumers will have no option but to turn more cautious in their spending, threatening the already soft economy,” he told CNBC, warning that families could end up spending nearly $2,000 extra on fuel-related costs if the war continues reaches the one-year mark.
Republicans emphasized last year that Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would give bigger tax returns to families across the country. Any benefit, said Zandi, has now been canceled out by the president's war.
On Thursday, US Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said the White House is in denial about the fact that Americans are struggling with the impact of Trump's foreign policy decisions as the Pentagon vastly underestimates how much the conflict has cost in public statements.
The acting comptroller of the Pentagon told Congress in April that the war had cost $25 billion, increasing the estimate to $29 billion two weeks later.
The senators told the Congressional Budget Office Friday that independent analyses had put the real cost of the war at $40 billion-$50 billion.
“It is essential," said the lawmakers, "that Congress and the American public receive accurate, comprehensive estimates of the costs of the war in Iran."
"We were guinea pigs," said the father of one of the convicted protesters. "They brought the swamp of Washington, DC, into our area to stop American citizens from exercising our rights that are guaranteed."
With the conviction of three anti-ICE protesters in Spokane, Washington on federal "conspiracy" charges Thursday, civil rights advocates and legal experts fear that the Trump administration may have just been handed a powerful tool to criminalize dissent.
Jac Archer, Justice Forral, and Bajun Mavalwalla II, nicknamed the "Spokane 3," were indicted last year for their actions at a protest in June 2025, where they attempted to physically obstruct ICE agents from transporting two Venezuelan immigrants to an ICE processing facility in Tacoma.
Both of the men reportedly entered the US legally under a humanitarian parole program that had been terminated by the Trump administration, leading advocates to protest their detention.
As Spokesman-Review, a Spokane newspaper, described:
Protesters that day eventually began linking arms around vans and in front of agents’ cars. The event grew chaotic. ICE agents entered a crowd of people standing outside the facility’s parking lot gate and began grabbing people by the necks and arms, pushing them to the ground. Protesters also slashed tires of vans meant to transport the detainees.
But where such activity would usually lead to charges against specific protesters for discrete illegal actions like trespassing, property damage, or other public order offenses, the Department of Justice (DOJ)—as part of a nationwide effort to crack down on protests against ICE—charged nine protesters with "conspiracy to impede or injure officers," even though no officers were actually injured during the protest.
Legal experts described it as a novel approach that wrapped many people involved in the protest into a single "conspiracy" regardless of whether they committed specific criminal acts.
“Usually if a protest gets out of hand and people are hurt or property is hurt, you see charges based on that,” Mary Fan, a former federal prosecutor and a University of Washington law professor, told The New York Times earlier this month. “They’re not going after people based on specific harm done. They’re stretching conspiracy charges to target protesters and people who organize protests.”
Facing pressure from the federal government to bring the case following a national memo sent from the DOJ to prioritize and publicize cases against ICE agents, then-acting US Attorney for Eastern Washington Richard Barker resigned last year rather than bring charges against the protesters.
He said at the time he was grateful he “never had to sign an indictment or file a brief that [he] didn’t believe in." His successor, Stephanie Van Marter, however, did sign the order.
Six of the defendants pleaded guilty to the charges to avoid federal prison time. But Archer, Forral, and Mavalwalla chose to fight them, believing the case was part of an unjust attempt to criminalize their right to protest.
After a trial that lasted seven days, a jury found the three defendants guilty of conspiracy. But the defense has argued that the trial was marred by problems that rendered the verdict faulty.
As the Guardian explained:
In February, a federal judge ordered the release of a Venezuelan migrant whose transportation for deportation the protesters sought to block, ruling his arrest violated the constitution.
But the jury, drawn from conservative eastern Washington state, did not hear those facts at trial, thanks to rulings by Judge [Rebecca] Pennell. Pennell, a former federal public defender and appointee of the Democratic president Joe Biden, also ruled the protesters on trial could not use the First Amendment as a defense, though they were allowed to state their reasons for demonstrating.
Instead, the jury watched hours of law enforcement body camera video and heard from a parade of ICE agents... Jeremy Burlingame, an ICE agent who testified, had authored social media posts that called Black politicians “lying ghetto garbage” and transgender people “mentally ill.” He boosted a post showing ICE arresting a pregnant woman at gunpoint that called her a “pregnant invader.”
Federal prosecutors deemed the posts troubling enough to recall Burlingame to impeach him, despite the fact that he was their witness...
But Burlingame’s online posts, the lack of injury to ICE officers, and the absence of evidence showing communication between the three defendants prior to the protest were not enough to sway the jury.
The defendants now face potential sentences of up to six years in prison and a $250,000 fine. However, they are expected to appeal the verdict and have filed a rarely used motion allowing their attorneys to argue that no rational juror could find their clients guilty.
"I question whether justice truly was served by today’s verdict,” Barker told the Spokesman-Review. "This was the first conspiracy prosecution in Eastern Washington history under... a Civil War-era law dusted off to punish members of the Spokane community who stood up for two young men who were unlawfully detained by ICE."
Video by KREM 2 News/Youtube
Looking beyond the details of the trial itself, many observers questioned the very premise of the DOJ's prosecution.
Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown said from the start of the trial she believed it was "politically motivated."
"It was meant to make an example out of people who disagreed with federal immigration policy," she said.
City council member Sarah Dixit, who said she took part in the protest, said: "Based on the evidence that was shown, I personally didn’t see evidence of what they were accused of. Conspiracy is a charge that feels complicated to prove, and I don’t believe that the government made a strong case for that.”
Others expressed fear for the precedent that had been set. La Rond Baker, the legal director of the Washington ACLU, said the Trump administration "has a demonstrable history of using the Department of Justice to silence and punish its critics."
The administration has pursued similar sweeping conspiracy charges against other groups of anti-ICE protesters around the country—including in Los Angeles, Broadview, Illinois, and North Texas.
“The verdict was painfully disappointing,” said Archer’s attorney, Carl Oreskovich. “I think it was an extraordinarily aggressive approach to prosecution of protests. And it certainly is going to chill people who want to utilize their First Amendment right to dissent against government actions that they don’t agree with."
In a comment to The Guardian, Robert Chang, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Law and executive director of its Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, said the verdict was "frightening."
“By this logic, any protest could be a conspiracy,” he said. “The goal posts keep moving.”
Bajun Mavalwalla Sr., a retired US Army intelligence officer who served in Afghanistan, said his son—also a veteran of the same war—and the other two defendants were standing for "the freedoms that separate this country from the dictatorships.”
“People in Spokane and people in Eastern Washington need to understand that we were guinea pigs. That they brought the swamp of Washington, DC, into our area to stop American citizens from exercising our rights that are guaranteed,” the elder Mavalwalla said after his son was convicted.
“It was the whole point of the Constitution, the right to protest, the right to dissent, the right to assemble, all of those things are now in question because of this case," he said. "My son has taken the brunt of the entire weight of the United States government onto their shoulders.”