Former Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernández, sentenced last year to 45 years in prison for his role in helping drug traffickers move hundreds of tons of cocaine to the United States, was released from prison following a pardon from President Donald Trump, his wife announced Tuesday.

The U.S. Bureau of Prisons inmate website showed that Hernández was released from U.S. Penitentiary, Hazelton in West Virginia on Monday and a spokesperson for the bureau on Tuesday confirmed his release.

His wife Ana García thanked Trump for pardoning Hernández via the social platform X early Tuesday.

“After almost four years of pain, of waiting and difficult challenges, my husband Juan Orlando Hernández RETURNED to being a free man, thanks to the presidential pardon granted by President Donald Trump,” García’s post said. She included a picture of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons listing for Hernández indicating his release.

On Sunday, Trump was asked about why he pardoned Hernandez by reporters traveling with him on Air Force One.

“I was asked by Honduras, many of the people of Honduras,” Trump said.

“The people of Honduras really thought he was set up, and it was a terrible thing,” he said.

“They basically said he was a drug dealer because he was the president of the country. And they said it was a Biden administration set-up. And I looked at the facts and I agreed with them.”

Hernández was arrested at the request of the United States in February 2022, weeks after handing over power to current President Xiomara Castro.

Two years later, he was sentenced to 45 years in prison in a New York federal courtroom for taking bribes from drug traffickers so they could safely move some 400 tons of cocaine north through Honduras to the United States.

Hernández maintained throughout that he was innocent and the victim of revenge by drug traffickers he had helped extradite to the United States.

During his sentencing in New York, federal Judge P. Kevin Castel said the punishment should serve as a warning to “well educated, well dressed” individuals who gain power and think their status insulates them from justice when they do wrong.

Hernández portrayed himself as a hero of the anti-drug trafficking movement who teamed up with American authorities under three U.S. presidential administrations to reduce drug imports.

But the judge said trial evidence proved the opposite and that Hernández employed “considerable acting skills” to make it seem that he was an anti-drug trafficking crusader while he deployed his nation’s police and military, when necessary, to protect the drug trade.

Hernández is not guaranteed a quick return to Honduras.

Immediately after Trump announced his intention to pardon Hernández, Honduras Attorney General Johel Zelaya said via X that his office was obligated to seek justice and put an end to impunity.

He did not specify what charges Hernández could face in Honduras. There were various corruption-related investigations of his administration across two terms in office that did not lead to charges against him. President Xiomara Castro, who had Hernández arrested and extradited him to the U.S., will remain in office until January.

The pardon promised by Trump days before Honduras’ presidential election injected a new element into the contest that some said helped the candidate from his National Party Nasry Asfura, one of the leaders as the vote count proceeded Tuesday.

The Supreme Court is meeting in private Friday with a key issue on its agenda — President Donald Trump ’s birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The justices could say as soon as Monday whether they will hear Trump’s appeal of lower court rulings that have uniformly struck down the citizenship restrictions. They have not taken effect anywhere in the United States.

If the court steps in now, the case would be argued in the spring, with a definitive ruling expected by early summer.

The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term in the White House, is part of his administration’s broad immigration crackdown. Other actions include immigration enforcement surges in several cities and the first peacetime invocation of the 18th century Alien Enemies Act.

The administration is facing multiple court challenges, and the high court has sent mixed signals in emergency orders it has issued. The justices effectively stopped the use of the Alien Enemies Act to rapidly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without court hearings, while they allowed the resumption of sweeping immigration stops in the Los Angeles area after a lower court blocked the practice of stopping people solely based on their race, language, job or location.

The justices also are weighing the administration’s emergency appeal to be allowed to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area for immigration enforcement actions. A lower court has indefinitely prevented the deployment.

Birthright citizenship is the first Trump immigration-related policy to reach the court for a final ruling. Trump’s order would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.

While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or most likely violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.

The administration is appealing two cases.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.

A court official has dismissed a Justice Department complaint that accused a federal judge of “hostile and egregious” misconduct during hearings for a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender troops serving in the military.

The complaint accused U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., of inappropriately questioning a government lawyer about his religious beliefs and of trying to embarrass the attorney with a rhetorical exercise during a February hearing.

In a Sept 29 order that wasn’t made public until Monday, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the complaint. Srinivasan said a motion for Reyes’ recusal would have been the proper means for the Justice Department to contest her impartiality and seek her removal from the case.

The department didn’t explicitly ask for Reyes’ removal from the transgender troops’ litigation. And it didn’t file a petition for a review of the chief judge’s order, which didn’t reach any conclusions about the merits of the complaint’s allegations.

“If a party that believes a judge’s conduct in a case raises serious questions about her impartiality were to press its concerns in the ordinary way — by seeking her recusal in the case itself — the standards for resolving the matter are well established,” Srinivasan wrote.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment on Tuesday. Reyes declined to comment on the chief judge’s order or the department’s complaint.

The complaint was filed by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s then-chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, who has since left the department. Mizelle claimed Reyes’ behavior “compromised the dignity of the proceedings and demonstrated potential bias.”

“When judges demonstrate apparent bias or treat counsel disrespectfully, public confidence in the judicial system is undermined,” he wrote.

Mizelle’s complaint cited an exchange in which Reyes asked a government attorney: “What do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless that we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think Jesus would be, ‘Sounds right to me’?” The attorney responded by saying, “The United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything.”

The complaint also refers to a rhetorical exercise about discrimination. Reyes spoke of changing the rules in her courtroom to bar graduates of the University of Virginia law school from appearing before her because they are all “liars and lack integrity.” She instructed the government attorney, a graduate of the school, to sit down before calling him back up to the podium.

Reyes was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden, a Democrat. Trump and Republican allies have mounted an escalating series of attacks against the federal judiciary since the start of his second term.

Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order claims without presenting evidence that the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness. It required Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to issue a revised policy.

Six transgender people who were active-duty service members and two other plaintiffs seeking to join the military sued to challenge Trump’s order. Reyes blocked the order’s enforcement in March, ruling that it likely violates the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. A federal judge in Washington state also blocked enforcement of the order.

Reyes agreed to suspend her order pending the government’s appeal, which hasn’t been resolved yet. But the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban transgender people from the military in the meantime.

A bill that would allow judges to sentence women who get abortions to decades in prison and could restrict the use of IUDs and in vitro fertilization goes before a small group of South Carolina senators Tuesday.

This would be the first of at least a half-dozen legislative steps for the proposal that includes the strictest abortion prohibitions and punishments in the nation.

The subcommittee of the state Senate’s Medical Affairs Committee can change it Tuesday afternoon and even if it’s approved, its prospects are doubtful at best.

But even at this stage, the bill has gone further than any other such proposal across the U.S. since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, opening the door for states to implement abortion bans.

The proposal would ban all abortions unless the woman’s life is threatened. Current state law bans abortions after cardiac activity is detected, which is typically six week into a pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant. Current law also allows abortions for rape and incest victims up to 12 weeks.

The proposal would also do things that aren’t being done in any other state. Women who get an abortion and anyone who helps them could face up to 30 years in prison. It appears to ban any contraception that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting, which would ban intrauterine devices and could limit in vitro fertilization.

Providing information about abortions would be illegal, leaving doctors worried they couldn’t suggest places where the procedure is legal.

Republican Sen. Richard Cash, who sponsors the bill and is one of the Senate’s most strident voices against abortion, will run Tuesday’s subcommittee. He acknowledged problems last month with potentially banning contraception and restricting the advice doctors can give to patients. But he has given no indication what changes he or the rest of the subcommittee might support. Six of the nine members are Republicans.

Abortion remains an unsettled issue in conservative states and how much more to restrict it is fracturing anti-abortion groups.
South Carolina Citizens for Life, one of the state’s largest and oldest opponents of abortion, issued a statement last month saying it can’t support Cash’s bill because women who get abortions are victims too and shouldn’t be punished.

On the other side, at least for this bill, are groups like Equal Protection South Carolina. “Abortion is murder and should be treated as such,” founder Mark Corral said.

President Donald Trump signed a government funding bill Wednesday night, ending a record 43-day shutdown that caused financial stress for federal workers who went without paychecks, stranded scores of travelers at airports and generated long lines at some food banks.

Before signing the legislation, Trump said the government should never shut down again, adding, “This is no way to run a country.”

Trump’s signature draws to a close the second government shutdown he’s overseen in the White House, one that magnified the partisan divisions in Washington as his administration took unprecedented unilateral actions -- including canceling projects and trying to fire federal workers -- to pressure Democrats into relenting on their demands.

The signing ceremony came just hours after the House passed the measure on a mostly party-line vote of 222-209. The Senate had already passed the measure Monday.

In lengthy remarks before affixing his name, Trump said, “It’s an honor now to sign this incredible bill.”

He said the government should never shut down again, adding, “This is no way to run a country.”

Trump was surrounded in the Oval Office by Republican lawmakers and some former members of Congress who are now heading powerful business lobbying groups.

His signature drew applause, but Trump didn’t answer questions on the Epstein scandal or any other topic before the press was hustled out.

Trump signed the government funding bill Wednesday night, drawing to a close the second government shutdown he’s overseen in the White House.

The signing ceremony came just hours after the House passed the measure on a mostly party-line vote of 222-209. The Senate had already passed the measure Monday.

Congress has taken a major step toward reopening the government, but there’s still uncertainty about when all 42 million Americans who receive SNAP food aid will have access to their full November benefits.

One provision in the bill that would reopen the government calls for restarting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but even that doesn’t resolve when the benefits will be loaded onto the debit cards beneficiaries use to buy groceries.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which runs the program, said in an email Wednesday that funds could be available “upon the government reopening, within 24 hours for most states.” The department didn’t immediately answer questions about where it might take longer.

Wander Franco’s attorneys pushed to have the suspended Tampa Bay Rays shortstop’s sexual-abuse conviction and sentencing overturned Tuesday.

Franco in June was convicted of sexually abusing a minor, and he then received a two-year suspended sentence. Meanwhile, prosecutors are seeking a five-year sentence.

The court of appeals in Puerto Plata, where the case was heard, said it would issue a ruling on Dec. 9 after hearing arguments from prosecutors and Franco’s lawyers.

Franco was arrested last year after being accused of having a four-month relationship with a girl who was 14 at the time, and of transferring thousands of dollars to her mother to consent to the illegal relationship.

Franco was once Tampa Bay’s star shortstop, signing an 11-year, $182 million contract in November 2021.

Authorities in the Dominican Republic announced in August 2023 they were investigating him for an alleged relationship with a minor.

In January 2024, Franco was arrested in his home country. Six months later, Tampa Bay placed him on the restricted list.

The national battle to control the U.S. House shifts to California on Tuesday as voters consider a Democratic proposal that could erase as many as five Republican districts and blunt President Donald Trump’s moves to safeguard his party’s lock on Washington power.

The outcome will reverberate into next year’s midterm elections and beyond, with Democrats hoping a victory will set the stage for the party to regain control of the House in 2026. A shift in the majority would imperil Trump’s agenda for the remainder of his term at a time of deep partisan divisions over immigration, health care and the future direction of the nation.

“God help us if we lose in California,” Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom says.

Democrats need to gain just three seats in the 2026 elections to take control of the House.

Heavily Democratic California and its 52 congressional districts represent by far the Democrats’ best opportunity in an unprecedented state-by-state redistricting battle, which started when Texas Republicans heeded Trump’s demand that they redraw their boundaries to help the GOP retain its House majority. Democrats hold 43 of the state’s seats and hope to boost that to 48.

Trump is fighting not just the Democrats but history. Midterm elections typically punish the party in the White House, but four GOP-led states so far have adopted new district maps to pack more Republican voters into key districts.

Measure supported by Newsom, Obama

California’s Proposition 50 asks voters to suspend House maps drawn by an independent commission and replace them with rejiggered districts adopted by the Democratic-controlled Legislature. Those new districts would be in place for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections.

The recast districts aim to dilute Republican voters’ power, in one case by uniting rural, conservative-leaning parts of far northern California with Marin County, a famously liberal coastal stronghold across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco.

The measure has been spearheaded by Newsom, who has thrown the weight of his political operation behind it in a major test of his mettle ahead of a potential 2028 presidential campaign. Former President Barack Obama has urged voters to pass it as well.

Newsom has sought to nationalize the campaign, depicting the proposal as a counterweight to all things Trump.

“Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to rig the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years,” Obama says in one ad. “You can stop Republicans in their tracks.”

Critics say two wrongs don’t make a right. They urge Californians to reject what they call a Democratic power grab, even if they have misgivings about Trump’s moves in Republican-led states.

Among the most prominent critics is Arnold Schwarzenegger, the movie star and former Republican governor who pushed for the creation of the independent commission, which voters approved in 2008 and 2010. It makes no sense to fight Trump by becoming him, Schwarzenegger said in September, arguing that the proposal would “take the power away from the people.”

“I don’t want Newsom to have control,” said Rebecca Fleshman, a 63-year-old retired medical assistant from Norco in Southern California, who voted against the measure. “I don’t want the state to be blue. I want it to be red.”

After an early burst of TV advertising, opponents of the plan have struggled to raise cash in a state with some of the nation’s most expensive media markets. Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact last week showed Democrats and other supporters with over $5 million in ad buys booked on broadcast TV, cable and radio. But opponents had virtually no time reserved, though the data didn’t include some popular streaming services like Hulu and YouTube or mail advertising.

Total spending on broadcast and cable ads topped $100 million, with more than two-thirds of it coming from supporters. Newsom told people to stop donating in the race’s final weeks.

Trump, who overwhelmingly lost California in his three presidential campaigns, largely stayed out of the fray. A week before the election, he urged voters in a social media post not to vote early or by mail — messaging that conflicts with that of top Republicans in the state who urged people to get their ballots in as soon as possible.

Democrats hope to pick up as many as five seats in California if voters approve the new boundaries, offsetting the five that Republicans hope to pick up through their new Texas maps. Republicans also expect to gain one seat each from new maps in Missouri and North Carolina, and potentially two more in Ohio.

Congressional district boundaries are typically redrawn every 10 years to reflect population shifts documented in the census. Mid-decade redistricting is unusual, absent a court order finding fault with the maps in place.

Five other GOP-led states are also considering new maps: Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana and Nebraska. On the Democratic side, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Virginia have proposals to redraw maps, but major hurdles remain.

A court has ordered new boundaries be drawn in Utah, where all four House districts are represented by Republicans, but it remains to be seen if the state will approve a map that makes any of them winnable for Democrats.