By Jennifer Hansler, Ibrahim Dahman, Tal Shalev, CNN

(CNN) — The US announced the start of the next phase of the Gaza ceasefire plan on Wednesday as a new committee was formed to run the battered enclave.

US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff said the second phase of the 20-point-plan would focus on “demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction,” but his statement lacked key details about how to carry out some of the most difficult issues stipulated in the agreement. “The US expects Hamas to comply fully with its obligations, including the immediate return of the final deceased hostage. Failure to do so will bring serious consequences,” he said in a post on X.

The US moved to the second phase of the ceasefire deal despite Israeli opposition over the lack of progress on Hamas disarmament and the remains of one hostage, Ran Gvili, still being held in Gaza. In response, Israel has refused to open the Rafah crossing between Israel and Egypt. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to prevent the start of the second phase. “Until Ran returns, the State of Israel cannot close its deepest wound, nor begin the healing and recovery it so desperately needs,” the forum said in a statement. Netanyahu, who did not address Witkoff’s announcement directly, said in a statement that Israel still demanded the return of Gvili’s remains.

But eager to advance what is arguably President Donald Trump’s biggest foreign policy accomplishment in his second term, the US announced the transition into the far more difficult next phase of the deal. The second phase requires the creation of an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to deploy to Gaza in order to support a Palestinian police force and allow Israel to begin withdrawing from the territory it still occupies. Yet few countries have been willing to commit personnel to the ISF, without which much of the second phase of the ceasefire agreement becomes even more challenging.

The announcement coincided with the formation of a committee of Palestinian technocrats to handle the daily governance of Gaza as the US tries to move forward with its plans for reconstruction and the demilitarization of the territory. Under the US-brokered agreement, the committee is supposed to run Gaza until a reformed Palestinian Authority can take over, which could then lead to what the plan calls a “credible path to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” Netanyahu vociferously objects to Palestinian Authority involvement in Gaza and to any notion of a Palestinian state.

The Palestinian Authority welcomed the announcement, thanking Trump for “efforts to consolidate the ceasefire and to move to the second phase of its implementation, including reconstruction.” The so-called Palestinian factions, an umbrella organization of militant groups led by Hamas, also hailed Trump’s efforts “while affirming the factions’ full commitment to continuing the implementation of the ceasefire agreement and the remaining stages” of the plan. Earlier this week, Hamas said it had “issued directives” to cede power from its government agencies to the committee.

Although the US has not publicly named the members of the committee, CNN has reported Nickolay Mladenov, a Bulgarian politician and diplomat who previously served as the UN special

CNN

By Brian Stelter, Katelyn Polantz, CNN

(CNN) — Last month, Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson penned a first-person piece about her long year as “the federal government whisperer,” receiving tips from hundreds of federal workers impacted by President Donald Trump’s transformation of the government.

Early Wednesday morning, FBI agents arrived at Natanson’s home and executed a search warrant. One phone and two computers were seized, the Post reported.

“This extraordinary, aggressive action is deeply concerning and raises profound questions and concern around the constitutional protections for our work,” Post editor Matt Murray said in a memo to the newsroom.

Attorney General Pam Bondi alleged in a post on X that Natanson was “obtaining and reporting classified and illegally leaked information from a Pentagon contractor.”

FBI Director Kash Patel alleged in a separate statement that “an individual at the Washington Post” obtained and reported “classified, sensitive military information from a government contractor.” The FBI has not charged the reporter and has not presented evidence to support its claim.

The Post had no immediate response to the allegations. Earlier, a Post spokesperson said the publication was monitoring the situation.

The highly unusual search immediately set off alarms among press freedom advocates.

“Searches of newsrooms and journalists are hallmarks of illiberal regimes, and we must ensure that these practices are not normalized here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute.

Press advocates also stressed that journalists do not commit a crime by reporting on or publishing leaked documents, even when the sources who disclose them may face legal exposure.

“Journalists are legally permitted to publish government secrets and the courts have again and again reaffirmed that First Amendment right,” Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders USA, told CNN.

Natanson was told that she is not a target of the investigation, a person familiar with the matter told CNN. Instead, it appears to be related to an ongoing probe of a government contractor in Maryland.

According to the Post’s own story, “the warrant said that law enforcement was investigating Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a system administrator in Maryland who has a top secret security clearance and has been accused of accessing and taking home classified intelligence reports that were found in his lunchbox and his basement, according to an FBI affidavit.”

Perez-Lugones was charged last week with illegally retaining classified documents, according to a federal affidavit. He is scheduled to appear in federal court on Thursday.

Bondi did not name any specific individual in her statement, but said, “The leaker is currently behi

By Camila DeChalus, CNN

(CNN) — Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin said Wednesday that US Attorney Jeanine Pirro wants a formal interview with her following her involvement in a controversial video urging service members and intelligence officials to disobey illegal orders.

“To be clear, this is the president’s playbook. Truth doesn’t matter. Facts don’t matter, and anyone who disagrees with him becomes an enemy, and he then weaponizes The federal government against them,” Slotkin said in a video, detailing the investigation she said is underway against her.

It was not immediate clear what crime the Justice Department may be investigating related to Slotkin, though President Donald Trump has suggested the six Democratic lawmakers engaged in “seditious behavior.” A spokesperson for the senator said she’s “ready for anything.”

CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

The reported contact from DOJ signals that the department has not let up on its investigation into the “illegal orders” video after the FBI first contacted with the Senate and House sergeant-at-arms in November seeking to schedule interviews with the six Democratic lawmakers in the video. The Trump administration has painted the video as a dangerous undermining of the president’s authority as commander in chief, while the Democrats have argued they were simply restating the law.

The New York Times first reported the senator saying this week she was under investigation.

Reached by CNN, a spokesperson for Chris Deluzio did not comment on whether the Pennsylvania congressman had also been contacted by the DOJ but said he would not be intimidated. “It’s obvious that this Administration is engaged in a harassment campaign against their political rivals, even targeting Members of Congress for stating the law,” the spokesperson said.

CNN has also reached out to the offices of Reps. Chrissy Houlahan, Jason Crow and Maggie Goodlander, as well as Sen. Mark Kelly, who is in a separate legal fight to block Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth from cutting his retirement pay an reducing his rank related to the video.

Slotkin said Wednesday that since the release of the video, she has experienced bomb threats at her home, her parents have been swatted in the middle of the night and her siblings have had to get police presence in her homes.

“Right now, speaking out against the abuse of power is the most patriotic thing we can do,” she said.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

CNN’s Aleena Fayaz contributed to this report.

The post Democratic senator says DOJ wants a formal interview with her in probe of lawmakers’ controversial ‘illegal orders’ video appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

By Chelsea Bailey, CNN

(CNN) — Officials in Minnesota and Illinois filed lawsuits within hours of each other Monday seeking to curb the Trump administration’s ongoing immigration crackdown in their states.

Although the lawsuits are separate and nuanced, both states cited the 10th Amendment to back their claim that the surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents – which has stoked nationwide protests, as well as violence and fear in their cities – is tantamount to federal overreach and a violation of their state’s sovereignty.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has said his office believes the surge in federal agents is a violation of the 10th amendment, which establishes the division of powers between the state and federal government.

“The Constitution gives Minnesota the sovereign authority to protect (the) health and wellbeing of every single person who lives in our borders,” Ellison said at a Monday news conference announcing the lawsuit.

“We’re going to defend those rights because – as much as they like to believe it – DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is not above the law, and the people of Minnesota are certainly not beneath it.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker went a step further in his remarks about his state’s lawsuit, claiming Illinois will hold President Donald Trump and his administration “accountable for their unlawful tactics, unnecessary escalations, and flagrant abuses of power.”

Trump and his administration have said the Constitution gives the federal government broad authority to enforce national immigration laws as the government sees fit.

In a lengthy statement posted on Truth Social Tuesday, Trump defended ICE tactics and declared, “FEAR NOT, GREAT PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA, THE DAY OF RECKONING & RETRIBUTION IS COMING!”

But constitutional law experts told CNN the pair of lawsuits have essentially pitted the states’ rights to self-govern and protect their citizens against the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration policy within the nation’s borders.

And it opens the door for a new interpretation of an amendment central to the Bill of Rights, experts say.

The dividing line between state and federal government

Michele Goodwin, professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, said understanding the significance of Illinois and Minnesota’s lawsuits begins with understanding the importance of the Bill of Rights and the 10th Amendment.

“The Bill of Rights was intended to protect these new Americans, these people who have fled the worst of political oversteps in the United Kingdom,” she said. “(It) was intended to protect individuals against overreach, against abuses of power by government.”

The First Amendment establishes fundamental freedoms of speech, press, religion, and peaceful assembly. It also protects the right to petition the government – or formally ask the government to make changes without fear of punishment – and prevents Congress from making laws that trample on these rights.

Subsequent amendments, Goodwin said, build on these protections to further enumerate the rights of citizens and protect against government overreach.

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with county police in Montana who entered the home of a man without a warrant because they feared he might be suicidal, rejecting an argument that the officers needed probable cause.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.

“We repeat today what we have held before: An officer may enter a home without a warrant if he has ‘an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury,’” Kagan wrote. “The officers’ entry satisfied that test.”

Police arrived at the home of William Trevor Case west of Butte, Montana, in 2021 after his ex-girlfriend reported he had threatened suicide during an earlier telephone call. Peering through the windows, they noticed an empty handgun holster and a notepad, which they took to be a suicide note.

Several of the officers involved had known Case, an Army veteran, for years. Body camera footage suggests at least some were concerned that Case was attempting to bring the officers into his home to attempt “suicide by cop.”

As they entered his home through an unlocked door and began clearing rooms, Case emerged from behind a closet curtain, revealing what officers said appeared to be a “black object,” according to court records. One of the officers fired, striking Case in the arm and abdomen. Police seized a handgun lying in a laundry basket near Case, who was hospitalized and survived. The county said bodycam footage later confirmed that Case pointed a gun at one of the officers as he emerged from the closet.

When county prosecutors charged him with felony assault on a peace officer, Case moved to suppress the evidence from the officers’ warrantless entry into his house. A trial court denied that motion and Case was convicted. In a divided decision, Montana’s Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision, ruling police entered the home under the “community caretaker” exception to the 4th Amendment, which allows police to enter a home without a warrant if their purpose is not investigate a crime.

In his appeal to the US Supreme Court, Case argued that police should have had probable cause to believe an emergency is occurring.

“Because that suicide-by-cop risk was one the officers controlled, and because the entry itself is what created the risk that Case would be ‘seriously injured,’ it was unreasonable for the officers to enter Case’s home without a warrant,” Case’s lawyers told the Supreme Court.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post Supreme Court backs Montana police who entered a home without warrant for emergency appeared first on News Channel 3-12.