Israel-Iran ConflictLive Updates: Israel and Iran Trade New Strikes on 9th Day of War
President Trump was angry.
Earlier this month, Tulsi Gabbard, his director of national intelligence, had posted a three-and-half-minute video to social media describing her visit to Hiroshima, Japan, and outlining the horrors caused by the detonation of a nuclear weapon there 80 years ago.
Speaking directly to the camera, Ms. Gabbard warned that the threat of nuclear war remained. 'As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before,' she said, 'political elites and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tension between nuclear powers.'
Mr. Trump berated Ms. Gabbard for the video, according to two people briefed on the conversation. He said that her discussion of nuclear annihilation would scare people and that officials should not talk about it.
Mr. Trump's displeasure with the video laid bare months of his skepticism of Ms. Gabbard and frustrations with her. The president and some administration officials viewed her overseas travel, as the video exemplified, as being as much about self-promotion of her political career as it was about the business of government, multiple officials said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics of the administration.
But the tensions surrounding Ms. Gabbard are now in the open, as Mr. Trump considers mounting a military strike on Iran. Ms. Gabbard, a critic of overseas entanglements, has privately raised concerns of a wider war. And on Friday Mr. Trump said 'she's wrong' when he was asked about her testimony in March that Iran had not decided to build a nuclear weapon.
After the video was posted, the president also told Ms. Gabbard that he was disappointed in her, and wished she had used better judgment, according to one of the two people briefed on the conversation. He told Ms. Gabbard that he believed she was using her time working for him to set herself up for higher office. Mr. Trump told Ms. Gabbard that if she wanted to run for president, she should not be in the administration, one of the people briefed on the meeting said.
Image
Ms. Gabbard and her husband, Abraham Williams, at her swearing-in at the White House in February.
Credit...
Eric Lee/The New York Times
While Ms. Gabbard is a former Democrat, her credentials as a critic of America's long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and as a skeptic of foreign military interventions appeal to Mr. Trump's base, and her views dovetail with those of some of his other advisers. Her supporters are openly advocating that the president keep her.
'The president needs someone who will give him the right intelligence information, whether he likes it or not,' said Daniel L. Davis, an analyst at the think tank Defense Priorities, which advocates a restrained foreign policy. 'If you put someone else in there, they might only tell him what he wants to hear.'
Mr. Davis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, was Ms. Gabbard's choice for a top intelligence role before criticism from Republicans over his skepticism of Israel's war in Gaza forced her to rescind the appointment.
There is no question, officials said, that Ms. Gabbard's standing has been weakened and that she is embattled. But few in the administration want to see her depart. Some say she has people who like her, while others worry about who might replace her. Two officials said that Mr. Trump's anger over the video had faded and that they were back on better terms.
Ms. Gabbard continues to brief the president regularly and speaks often to John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, who held Ms. Gabbard's job in the first Trump administration, according to multiple officials.
In a statement, the White House press office dismissed any notion she has been sidelined. Steven Cheung, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Trump had 'full confidence' in his national security team. 'D.N.I. Gabbard is an important member of the president's team and her work continues to serve him and this country well,' Mr. Cheung said.
Ms. Gabbard was an aggressive supporter of Mr. Trump on the 2024 campaign trail. He and his top advisers valued her input, especially when Mr. Trump was preparing to debate Vice President Kamala Harris — whom Ms. Gabbard had memorably attacked in a Democratic primary debate in 2019.
After the election, Mr. Trump quickly decided to nominate her for director of national intelligence. But from the beginning he made clear to associates that he harbored some doubts. Mr. Trump, according to associates, saw her as overly interested in her own success.
Mr. Trump drew a contrast between Ms. Gabbard and the other former Democrat he named to his cabinet, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
'Bobby's a star,' Mr. Trump told one associate. 'Tulsi? Tulsi wants to be a star.' Mr. Trump's implication was that unlike Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Gabbard did not have what it took to succeed in politics.
Image
Ms. Gabbard with Mr. Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tucker Carlson during a campaign event in Georgia in October.
Credit...
Kenny Holston/The New York Times
And soon after her swearing-in, he began to complain about her effectiveness.
At the same time, Mr. Trump — long mistrustful of the intelligence community — questioned whether there needed to be an Office of the Director of National Intelligence at all.
A senior intelligence official said Ms. Gabbard had overseen a 25 percent cut in the size of her office. And Ms. Gabbard has repeatedly told people in the White House that she is willing to be the last director of national intelligence, according to an official. The office, Ms. Gabbard said, could be reabsorbed into the C.I.A., or become something akin to the National Security Council, a bare-bones oversight group.
At least for a time, the kind of foreign policy restraint Ms. Gabbard favors appeared to gain traction this spring.
In White House discussions about Israel and Iran, Ms. Gabbard raised the range of possible consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran, saying it could trigger a wider conflict that brought in the United States. Vice President JD Vance, at times also a skeptic of military intervention, made similar arguments and was among those who supported Mr. Trump's impulse to initially try to negotiate a deal with Iran.
As the C.I.A. delivered intelligence reports that Israel intended to strike Iran regardless, Mr. Trump and senior aides became more publicly supportive of the Israeli campaign.
Ms. Gabbard did not attend a key meeting at Camp David, where Mr. Ratcliffe presented assessments about Iran's nuclear program. Ms. Gabbard, according to officials, was on Army Reserve duty. Other people with knowledge of the matter have said she was not invited. (Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Ms. Gabbard had met daily with Mr. Trump and his team.)
Then on Tuesday, Mr. Trump contradicted Ms. Gabbard in public. After the Israeli strikes began, a journalist on Air Force One asked Mr. Trump about Ms. Gabbard's testimony in March that Iran had not decided to make a nuclear bomb.
'I don't care what she said,' Mr. Trump said. 'I think they were very close to having it.'
He made similar comments on Friday.
Image
Mr. Trump, aboard Air Force One this week, contradicted Ms. Gabbard's assessment of Iran's nuclear program.
Credit...
Kenny Holston/The New York Times
An official from Ms. Gabbard's office said her position was not at odds with Mr. Trump's. In her testimony, Ms. Gabbard reported the consensus opinion of the intelligence community: that Iran's supreme leader had not authorized the country to build a nuclear weapon. But Ms. Gabbard had also noted Iran's large stocks of enriched uranium and a shift in tone that was 'likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus.'
But Mr. Trump's Air Force One remark came off as a rebuke.
To a certain extent, some officials said, courting Mr. Trump's displeasure is a hazard of any intelligence job in his administration.
Mr. Trump believes the intelligence community undermined him in his first term, and his long-held skepticism that it is part of a disloyal deep state continues. Ms. Gabbard, when briefing Mr. Trump, presents a range of options and assessments. But it is difficult to talk about the findings of spy agencies and not raise Mr. Trump's ire, the official said.
Ms. Gabbard's most important job as director of national intelligence is overseeing, and delivering, the president's daily intelligence brief. But the brief is actually produced a few miles from her office at the C.I.A., and many of those working on the document are detailed from the agency. Ms. Gabbard announced internally last month that she would physically move the production of the brief to her headquarters, known as Liberty Crossing.
Within the administration, several senior officials saw it as a way to try to enhance her own relevance at a time when Mr. Trump was questioning the relevance of the office. Others said it was an expensive decision that would be logistically difficult to carry out.
Ultimately, the White House put the move on pause, according to multiple people briefed on the matter.
Ms. Gabbard has influential defenders inside and outside the government. Mr. Vance, seen as the most senior voice for a less hawkish, more restrained foreign policy, issued a long social media post defending the administration's support of Israel's attack on Iran. He added to that a message supporting Ms. Gabbard. He also released a statement calling her a 'patriot.'
Her supporters insist that she remains relevant and that, over time, her skepticism of American intervention in Ukraine and caution on military action against Iran will once more prevail. The possible delay of any decision by Mr. Trump to strike Iran represents an opportunity for diplomacy and critics of American military intervention to make the case for restraint, some of Ms. Gabbard's supporters said.
Olivia C. Coleman, a spokeswoman for Ms. Gabbard's office, dismissed the reports of dissatisfaction or tensions with the White House as 'lies made up by bored, irrelevant anonymous sources with nothing better to do than sow fake division.'
'The director,' Ms. Coleman said, 'remains focused on her mission: providing accurate and actionable intelligence to the president, cleaning up the deep state and keeping the American people safe, secure and free.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US moves stealth bombers as it considers military action against Iran
The US military has sent American B-2 stealth bombers to the US island territory of Guam in the Pacific Ocean as President Donald Trump continues to weigh whether to join Israel in launching offensive air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The large jets are considered to be the only aircraft capable of carrying weapons that can strike Iran's most secure nuclear facility, which is buried deep underground below a mountain. US officials have not commented on whether the deployment is linked to the conflict in the Middle East. On Friday, Trump said he would give Iran a maximum of two weeks to make a deal to limit its nuclear programme in order to prevent US strikes. The planes are being sent to Guam from the US state of Missouri. While the deployment is not being officially connected to discussions around the US joining Israel's war on Iran, few will doubt the link. The huge planes, which have wingspans of more than 50 metres, are the only aircraft capable of carrying the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000lb (13,608kg) bunker-busting bomb that experts say is required to destroy Iran's deep nuclear facility at Fordo. The facility is thought to be buried around 100m below the surface, protected by reinforced concrete. Despite their overwhelming aerial superiority, Israel lacks the munitions to damage the facility, hence requiring US support. Around 9,500km (5,900m) to the east of Fordo, Guam is maybe not the most obvious base from which to launch any attack. There had also been speculation that the UK facility, Diego Garcia, which is twice as close to Iran than Guam, might be used as a staging post. That would have caused a potential political and diplomatic headache for the British government, as they would have to give their blessing to any US attack, which might in turn make UK bases a target for Iranian retaliation. It is unclear why Guam was chosen as a destination for the bombers. US officials told the BBC's US partner, CBS News, that it is thought that the Guam base would provide better operational secrecy than Diego Garcia. Last week, at least 30 US military planes were moved from the US to Europe, according to flight tracking data reviewed by the BBC. The planes in question are all US military tanker aircraft used to re-fuel fighter jets and bombers. According to Flightradar24, at least seven of these - all KC-135s - stopped off in US airbases in Spain, Scotland and England. The jet movements come amid reports that the US has also moved an aircraft carrier - the USS Nimitz - from the South China Sea towards the Middle East. The Nimitz carries a contingent of fighter jets and is escorted by several guided missile destroyers. The US has also moved F-16, F-22 and F-35 fighter jets to bases in the Middle East, three defence officials told Reuters on Tuesday. The tanker planes moved to Europe over the past several days can be used to re-fuel these jets. US moves 30 jets as Iran attack speculation grows
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rod Stewart Reveals The 1 Reason His Trump Friendship Is Done: 'I Can't Anymore'
Grammy-winning singer Rod Stewart says he can't be friends with President Donald Trump anymore, citing his administration's ongoing support for the brutal Israeli military campaign in Gaza that has killed more than 55,000 Palestinians since October 2023 according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Stewart recently sat down for an interview with Radio Times to promote his upcoming set at the Glastonbury Festival, only to tear into Trump, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu — after being asked if he still considers Trump a friend. 'No, I can't any more,' Stewart told the outlet. 'As long as he's selling arms to the Israelis — and he still is. How's that war ever gonna stop? And we should stop selling them as well. What did Starmer say yesterday? They dropped the talks on trade?' 'What fucking difference is that gonna make?' the singer continued. 'Someone's gotta do something. What Netanyahu is doing to the Palestinians is exactly what happened to the Jews. It's annihilation, and that's all he wants to do — get rid of them all.' 'I don't know how they sleep at night,' Stewart added. This isn't the first time Stewart has criticized Trump. The rock icon reportedly said ahead of the 2016 election that he didn't think Trump was 'presidential,' called him a 'prick' in 2020 for pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords and ridiculed him onstage last year. Stewart used to frequently socialize with the former real estate tycoon, however. The rock icon explained during his interview Tuesday that he lives 'literally half a mile' from Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida — and once 'knew him very, very well.' 'I used to go to his Christmas parties,' Stewart told Radio Times. 'He's always been a bit of a man's man. I liked him for that. But he didn't, as far as I'm concerned, treat women very well. But since he became president, he became another guy.' 'Somebody I didn't know,' he reflected. The singer mocked Trump last year during a Las Vegas concert ahead of the 2024 election for 'turning orange,' as Trump made the racist claim that then-Democratic nominee, former Vice President Kamala Harris, 'happened to turn Black' before announcing her run. Stewart is a model railway enthusiast at home, but also politically active in his spare time. In 2017, he covered all necessary expenses for a group of children with disabilities — whose parents couldn't raise enough money to travel to Washington, D.C. — to protest a GOP health care bill that included proposed cuts to Medicaid. 'I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but I am a father,' he said at the time. CNN Data Chief Exposes How Trump Totally Lost This 'Political Battle' Proud Boys Have A Warning For Trump Former Trump Aide Steve Bannon Says Fox News Is Pushing 'Pure Propaganda' On Iran
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
'Cracking heads': Trump, DOJ moves signal end of reforms after George Floyd movement
When George Floyd was killed by a Minneapolis police officer five blocks from her home, Nichole Subola visited the site of his death again and again, trying to wrap her mind around it. Police reform seemed within reach as she watched the global impact of the protests. The floral arrangements, drawings and signs filled the streets in a place that came to be known as "George Floyd Square." Five years later, Subola, 59, isn't sure if local police will follow through on their commitment now that the Trump administration is abandoning federal consent decrees in cities that promised real change in training and hiring practices. More: An officer partially blinded a teen amid George Floyd protests. Was force excessive? "There's a consensus here that the police need to do better, but it's so hard to erase what happened viscerally," she said. "There's just no trust in the police, not for me and my community, and other parts of the city, there just isn't. I don't think it was there to begin with." Millions poured into the country's streets demanding systemic change in the wake of Floyd's murder on Memorial Day − coupled with the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor by Louisville police two months prior. Many believed America was turning a corner in terms of police accountability. Even Trump, who rarely criticized police action, called Floyd's death a "very sad event" in a May 27, 2020 tweet. "Justice will be served," he said. Much of that was snatched away in the years that followed, most notably in 2021 when Congress failed to pass sweeping reform package dubbed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. During Biden's presidency, federal investigators started a dozen "pattern or practice" probes into police departments across the nation, including Phoenix, Trenton and Memphis. None yielded any court-binding consent decrees, however, and then came the largest setback of all: Donald Trump returning to the White House. The president's team has now swung the pendulum in the opposite direction from five years ago, even attempting to rescind findings of constitutional violations in the cities where Floyd and Taylor lost their lives. Experts and voters on both sides of the debate say the U.S. Justice Department's decision on May 21 establishes a new political order for the country's ongoing police accountability debate, including the possibility of pardoning officers convicted by federal prosecutors during the Biden years. Among Trump's allies in the law enforcement ranks, there are cheers among those who argue consent decrees micromanage departments and were overused by the previous administration. Police reforms are better handled by local elected leaders and residents, who know their public safety needs better than Washington, said Jason Johnson, president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, which supports officers who are prosecuted or fired for actions while in the line of duty. "It should be a patchwork," he said. "Law enforcement is local, so the police in Minneapolis should conduct themselves in the way the citizens of Minneapolis want." But those on the other side of the fence assert the president is giving police officers a green light to do as they please. Jim Mulvaney, an adjunct professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, who previously served as deputy commissioner of New York state's human rights division, points out Trump often encouraged law enforcement to be rougher on certain suspects during the campaign. "He signaled back then that hard-handed law enforcement was what he wanted," he said. "Not obeying the Constitution, but cracking heads." Pulling back from those consent decrees coincides with a larger sea change at the Justice Department, which has reportedly lost 70% of its civil rights division lawyers since January. Administration officials have also shifted the division's focus toward enforcing the president's executive orders, such as combating antisemitism in higher education, ending alleged radical indoctrination in public schools and defending women's rights from "gender ideology extremism" in athletics and other areas. Up until the DOJ's announcement this month, Mulvaney said there has been a long-held presumption that the federal government would keep local law enforcement in check. "They've now been told, don't worry about it. And I think that that's only going to encourage bad behavior and at a very high cost," he said. Many activists and voters who spoke with USA TODAY echoed those concerns, but emphasized they aren't giving up on racial equality or seeking changes to law enforcement. Instead of lobbying Congress or engaging in large acts of civil disobedience, different forms of resistance are being spotlighted. "The solutions have never come from the system; they always came from people in the community. So I think this could be an opportunity to build more of that energy if we use it properly," said Rodney Salomon, 37, of Neptune Township, N.J., co-founder of KYDS, Konscious Youth Development & Service, a nonprofit that focuses on transforming communities through mindfulness, restorative practices and youth leadership. Others point to seeking change through economic actions like the Black-church led boycott of Target after the retail giant quashed its diversity initiatives. The company's first-quarter sales fell 3.8%, compared to analysts' estimates of a 1.08% decline. They are looking to find innovative ways to protect residents through technology, such as Selwyn Jones, a Floyd relative who developed the MYTH app, which would send out a panic alert to a person's emergency contacts when they're involved in a police interaction in real time. Kay Harris, 72, who lived in Asbury Park, N.J., through the city's race riots in the 1960s, said federal oversight is critical, but balancing the scales may have to come from other branches of government, such as the courts. "We cannot depend on the local precincts to do it themselves. I mean that is why we are in the position we are in right now," she said. "That doesn't mean that all police officers are unethical, but there are just too many rogue police officers who do just what they want." Asbury Park, for instance, settled at least five suits in roughly a decade involving allegations of racial discrimination. The victims were awarded $1.9 million in defense and settlement costs, city officials say. "If (Trump) is the law and order president, then he should ensure that law and order is followed appropriately," Harris said. "He is trying to roll things back to the 1950s." The Trump administration's decision to walk back reform efforts came days before the fifth anniversary of Floyd's murder on May 25, 2020. That timing wasn't lost on Justin Thamert, of Foley, Minnesota, a town about 65 miles north of Minneapolis, who said emotions remain raw. "I don't think anybody's gotten over it," he said. The 34-year-old mechanic, who voted for Trump last fall, said the Biden administration turned its back on law enforcement and made officers feel afraid to do their jobs. But he isn't sure federal authorities should abandon reform efforts in Minneapolis, which include minimizing the need to use force; investigating allegations of employee misconduct; and providing confidential mental health wellness services to officers and other public safety personnel. "I wouldn't shut the door," Thamert said. "I think (Minneapolis) will need help. I don't agree with them completely pulling out." Leaders in the cities where Taylor and Floyd died have been quick to pledge, regardless of the Trump administration's reversal, that they will seek to continue implementing changes to their law enforcement operations. Minneapolis was "making more progress towards the reforms" than most other municipalities in the country under a consent decree, Mayor Jacob Frey noted, citing a recently released independent evaluator's report. The report found the department had reduced its backlog of use-of-force cases under review from more than 1,100 to about 400 in the last six months. "The people in this city have demanded change for years and we're going to make sure we get this done," Frey told USA TODAY. Like many local officials, Frey, a Democrat, who is seeking reelection this year, has walked a political tightrope in the wake of controversial police encounters. He was criticized by Trump as a "very weak radical left mayor" in 2020 for his handling of the unrest that engulfed the city, but was slammed by left-leaning activists for opposing a 2021 ballot initiative that sought radical change and completely overhaul the police department with a new public safety agency. The plan would have shifted oversight from the mayor's office to the city council. However, 56% of voters rejected that idea. Frey said Minneapolis is standing by the court-ordered reforms, emphasizing that homicides and shootings are down. The city is rolling out new use-of-force measures, improving community engagement and making sure its work is transparent and accountable, he said. "So Donald Trump can do whatever he wants," Frey continued. "The bottom line is, regardless of what the White House does, we are moving forward, anyway." Similarly, Louisville officials immediately used the DOJ's decision to unveil a 214-page plan mirroring similar goals set by the Biden administration. It calls for hiring an independent monitor for up to five years who will help develop a plan covering use of force, community policing, misconduct investigations and behavioral health response. "We as a city are committed to reform," said Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg, a Democrat seeking reelection next year, at a May 21 press conference. There are some omissions in Louisville's new plan, however. The trimmed-down local plan removed a line about the use of Tasers that mandated officers learn about "the risks to persons exhibiting signs of mental illness, substance use, or experiencing behavioral health crisis," according to the Courier-Journal, part of the USA TODAY Network. Antonio Brown, 39, participated in the Louisville protests almost daily in the summer of 2020. He said his faith in federally supported police reforms waned after Trump was reelected. "I'm not surprised by what Trump's administration is doing, but I do wonder what our mayor is going to do, because he ran on change," Brown said. Other city officials and local activists have expressed skepticism about Greenberg, who contested some findings in the original 2023 federal report that determined the Louisville police department "unlawfully discriminates against Black people in its enforcement activities." Critics point out that the independent monitor's contract under the local plan is only renewable for up to five years, for instance. Greenberg also hasn't committed to rehiring the city's inspector general, who is charged with examining police misconduct and has butted heads with Louisville police since 2021. "It's definitely going to get worse if we don't see any change," said Brown, a machine operator at a local manufacturing company. "This is why we came outside –for reform. So if we don't get reform... I'm not going back in." As advocates on both sides of the police accountability debate decipher what Trump's about-face means for those communities, some are now focusing on what his administration might do next as allies seek to redefine the summer of 2020. Conservative activists have publicly lobbied for the president to pardon Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer convicted of Floyd's murder. Trump previously said that he wasn't considering pardoning Chauvin. But, Minneapolis officials said they are prepared for an emergency response with state and federal authorities while calming the waters. Frey pointed out, for example, that even if Chauvin were to be pardoned by Trump from his 21-year federal sentence, that would not free the former officer for his 22-year state sentence for second- and third-degree murder. By law, Trump doesn't have the power to pardon state sentences. In recent weeks, Trump's suppoters have publicly called for the same reprieve to be extended to former Louisville police detective Brett Hankinson, one of three officers who raided Taylor's apartment in 2020. He faces a life sentence after being found guilty last fall by a federal jury of violating the 26-year-old ER technician's civil rights. Right-leaning advocates noted Hankison was acquitted on state charges in 2022, and spotlight that no one was injured as a result of his gunfire on the night Taylor was shot to death. "Hankison should be completely (absolved) of any wrongdoing," Brandon Tatum, a former Arizona police officer turned YouTube political commentator, told his roughly 1.6 million Instagram followers on May 14. Tatum argued Hankinson is more deserving of a pardon than Chauvin, adding that he reached out to leaders in Congress to contact the White House on behalf of the former Louisville officer. Johnson, of the law enforcement defense fund, has called on the Trump administration to take a closer look at other cases they describe as "politically motivated," including a 2023 case involving a Massachusetts police sergeant facing federal charges for filing a false report. He said his group has not actively advocated for Hankinson's pardon, but that it does, "believe he is a good candidate for clemency." Trump has already wielded his executive authority in such a manner during his first week in office when he pardoned two Washington, D.C. police officers convicted last fall in the death of 20-year-old Karon Hylton-Brown, who was riding a moped on a sidewalk without a helmet when he ignored instructions to stop. Jerrod Moore, 44, an Atlanta construction inspector, said federal authorities investigating these type of case could have done more to weed out bad officers. He said changes coming from the national level have proven to be unreliable, and that he wouldn't be surprised if Trump pardoned more police officers convicted of violating people's constitutional rights in the coming years. "He's very selective about who he wants to pardon, and if he does, it will be an officer in one of the more egregious crimes," Moore said. "It's very clear who his target audience is. Look who he's pardoned already." Contributing: Charles Daye, Stephanie Kuzydym, Josh Wood, Keely Doll, Marc Ramirez, USA TODAY Network This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump, DOJ moves signal shift for police accountability after Floyd
