President Donald Trump signed an executive order temporarily suspending all U.S. foreign assistance programs for 90 days pending reviews to determine whether they are aligned with his policy goals.

It was not immediately clear how much assistance would initially be affected by the Monday order as funding for many programs has already been appropriated by Congress and is obligated to be spent, if not already spent.

The order, among many Trump signed on his first day back in office, said the “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values” and “serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.”

Consequently, Trump declared that “no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his confirmation hearing last week that “every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions:

“Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?” he said.

The order signed by Trump leaves it up to Rubio or his designee to make such determinations, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget. The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development are the main agencies that oversee foreign assistance.

Trump has long railed against foreign aid despite the fact that such assistance typically amounts to roughly 1% of the federal budget, except under unusual circumstances such as the billions in weaponry provided to Ukraine. Trump has been critical of the amount shipped to Ukraine to help bolster its defenses against Russia’s invasion.

The last official accounting of foreign aid in the Biden administration dates from mid-December and budget year 2023. It shows that $68 billion had been obligated for programs abroad that range from disaster relief to health and pro-democracy initiatives in 204 countries and regions.

Some of the biggest recipients of U.S. assistance, Israel ($3.3 billion per year), Egypt ($1.5 billion per year) and Jordan ($1.7 billion per year) are unlikely to see dramatic reductions, as those amounts are included in long-term packages that date back decades and are in some cases governed by treaty obligations.

Funding for U.N. agencies, including peacekeeping, human rights and refugee agencies, have been traditional targets for Republican administrations to slash or otherwise cut. The first Trump administration moved to reduce foreign aid spending, suspending payments to various UN agencies, including the U.N. Population Fund, and funding to the Palestinian Authority.

President Joe Biden on Monday pardoned Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley and members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, in an extraordinary use of the powers of the presidency in his final hours to guard against potential “revenge” by the incoming Trump administration.

The decision by Biden comes after Donald Trump warned of an enemies list filled with those who have crossed him politically or sought to hold him accountable for his attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss and his role in the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump has selected Cabinet nominees who backed his election lies and who have pledged to punish those involved in efforts to investigate him.

“The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense,” Biden said in a statement. “Our nation owes these public servants a debt of gratitude for their tireless commitment to our country.”

The pardons, announced with just hours left in Biden’s presidency, have been the subject of heated debate for months at the highest levels of the White House. It’s customary for a president to grant clemency at the end of his term, but those acts of mercy are usually offered to Americans who have been convicted of crimes.

Trump told NBC the pardons were disgraceful.

Biden, a Democrat, has used the power in the broadest and most untested way possible: to pardon those who have not even been investigated. His decision lays the groundwork for an even more expansive use of pardons by Trump, a Republican, and future presidents.

While the Supreme Court last year ruled that presidents enjoy broad immunity from prosecution for what could be considered official acts, the president’s aides and allies enjoy no such shield. There is concern that future presidents could use the promise of a blanket pardon to encourage allies to take actions they might otherwise resist for fear of running afoul of the law.

It’s unclear whether those pardoned by Biden would need to apply for the clemency or accept the president’s offer. Acceptance could be seen as a tacit admission of guilt or wrongdoing, validating years of attacks by Trump and his supporters, even though those who have been pardoned have not been formally accused of any crimes.

“These are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing,” Biden said, adding that “Even when individuals have done nothing wrong — and in fact have done the right thing — and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.”

Fauci was director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health for nearly 40 years, including during Trump’s term in office, and later served as Biden’s chief medical adviser until his retirement in 2022. He helped coordinate the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and raised Trump’s ire when he resisted Trump’s untested public health notions. Fauci has since become a target of intense hatred and vitriol from people on the right, who blame him for mask mandates and other policies they believe infringed on their rights, even as hundreds of thousands of people were dying.

“Despite the accomplishments that my colleagues and I achieved over my long career of public service, I have been the subject of politically-motivated threats of investigation and prosecution,” Fauci said in a statement. “There is absolutely no basis for these threats. Let me be perfectly clear: I have committed no crime.”

Milley, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called Trump a fascist and has detailed Trump’s conduct around the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection. He said he was grateful to Biden for a pardon.

One day after Michael Thomas Lewis was charged with felony stalking of Indiana Fever star and WNBA rookie of the year Caitlin Clark, the 55-year-old Texas man shouted “guilty as charged” as soon as he sat down in a courtroom Tuesday.

Lewis is accused of repeated and continued harassment of the 22-year-old Clark beginning on Dec. 16, the Marion County prosecutor’s office wrote in a court filing.

WISH-TV of Indianapolis reported that Lewis behaved “very erratically” in his first court appearance and, at times, appeared to be laughing and joking while noting he had not been taking his medication while jailed or while living out of his car.

Prosecutors said they were seeking a higher than standard bond because Lewis traveled from his home in Texas to Indianapolis “with the intent to be in close proximity to the victim.” Lewis was ordered held on a $50,000 bond, and if the bond is posted, he will be required to wear an ankle monitor and remain in Indiana.

The court also filed a not guilty plea on Lewis’ behalf, and Judge Angela Davis suggested Lewis “remain silent” in jail and only speak with his attorney.

Lewis received a no-contact order and the stay-away order sought by prosecutors that bars him from being within 500 feet of either of the two arenas where the Fever play their home games.

His pretrial hearing will be held remotely on March 31.

In one post on X, Lewis said he had been repeatedly been driving by Gainbridge Fieldhouse, the Indiana Pacers’ home arena where the Fever also play. In another, he said he had “one foot on a banana peel and the other on a stalking charge.” Other messages directed at Clark were sexually explicit.

The social media posts “actually caused Caitlin Clark to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened” and an implicit or explicit threat also was made “with the intent to place Caitlin Clark in reasonable fear of sexual battery,” prosecutors wrote in the Marion County Superior Court filing.

South Korea’s impeached president on Saturday argued for his release before a Seoul judge as the court reviewed whether to grant a law enforcement request for his formal arrest.

His appearance at the Seoul Western District Court triggered chaotic scenes in nearby streets, where thousands of his fervent supporters rallied for hours calling for his release. They clashed with police, who detained around 40 protesters including about 20 who climbed over a fence in an attempt to approach the court. At least two vehicles carrying anti-corruption investigators were damaged as they left the court after arguing for Yoon’s arrest.

Yoon has been in detention since he was apprehended on Wednesday in a massive law enforcement operation at his residence. He faces potential rebellion charges linked to his declaration of martial law on Dec. 3, which set off the country’s most serious political crisis since its democratization in the late 1980s.

The Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials, which is leading a joint investigation with police and the military, requested the Seoul Western District Court to grant a warrant for Yoon’s formal arrest.

Yoon’s lawyers said he spoke for about 40 minutes to the judge during the nearly five-hour closed-door hearing. His legal team and anti-corruption agencies presented opposing arguments about whether he should be held in custody. The lawyers did not share his specific comments.

The judge is expected to make a decision by late Saturday or early Sunday. Yoon’s motorcade was seen leaving the court Saturday evening for the detention center, where Yoon will await the decision.

If Yoon is arrested, investigators can extend his detention to 20 days, during which they will transfer the case to public prosecutors for indictment. If the court rejects the investigators’ request, Yoon will be released and return to his residence.

Yoon was transported to the court from a detention center in Uiwang, near Seoul, in a blue Justice Ministry van escorted by police and the presidential security service.

The motorcade entered the court’s basement parking space as thousands of Yoon’s supporters gathered in nearby streets despite a heavy police presence. Some protesters broke through the police lines and tapped on the windows of his van approaching the court. Yoon did not speak to reporters.

After its investigators were attacked by protesters, the anti-corruption agency asked media companies to obscure the faces of its members attending the hearing.

It hadn’t been clear until Saturday morning whether Yoon would choose to attend the hearing. Defense lawyers met Yoon at the detention center and he accepted his legal team’s advice to appear personally before the judge, said Yoon Kab-keun, one of the president’s lawyers. The lawyer said the president was to argue that his decree was a legitimate exercise of his powers and that accusations of rebellion would not hold up before a criminal court or the Constitutional Court, which is reviewing whether to formally remove him from office or reinstate him.

Nine people, including Yoon’s defense minister, police chief, and several top military commanders, have already been arrested and indicted for their roles in the enforcement of martial law.

The crisis began when Yoon, in an attempt to break through legislative gridlock, imposed military rule and sent troops to the National Assembly and election offices. The standoff lasted only hours after lawmakers who managed to get through a blockade voted to lift the measure. The opposition-dominated assembly voted to impeach him on Dec. 14.

If Yoon is formally arrested, it could mark the beginning of an extended period in custody for him, lasting months or more.

If prosecutors indict Yoon on rebellion and abuse of power charges, which are the allegations now being examined by investigators, they could keep him in custody for up to six months before trial.

Under South Korean law, orchestrating a rebellion is punishable by life imprisonment or the death penalty.  Yoon’s lawyers have argued that there is no need to detain him during the investigation, saying he doesn’t pose a threat to flee or destroy evidence.

Investigators respond that Yoon ignored several requests to appear for questioning, and that the presidential security service blocked an attempt to detain him on Jan. 3. His defiance has raised concerns about whether he would comply with criminal court proceedings if he’s not under arrest.

The Supreme Court ‘s decision could come Friday in the case about whether TikTok must shut down in a few days under a federal law that seeks to force its sale by the Chinese company that owns the social media platform used by 170 million people in the U.S.

The justices are weighing a free speech challenge to the law, which takes effect Sunday, against the national security concerns that prompted its enactment with broad bipartisan support last year. A lawyer for TikTok and ByteDance, its Chinese owner, told the court last week that TikTok will “go dark” on Sunday unless the justices grant it a temporary reprieve or strike down the law.

During courtroom arguments, most of the justices seemed likely to uphold the law.

Alongside the ongoing court case, a potential lifeline for TikTok has emerged. President-elect Donald Trump, who once supported banning the app, is exploring options to “preserve” TikTok, his incoming national security adviser, Florida Rep. Mike Waltz, said in a televised interview on Wednesday.

It’s not clear what authority Trump has to intervene, although he could direct the Justice Department not to enforce the law, which threatens sanctions against the technology companies that make the app available and host it. The Supreme Court indicated Thursday that the justices will issue at least one decision Friday, adhering to its custom of not saying which one. But it also departed from its usual practice in some respects, heightening the expectation that it’s the TikTok case that will be handed down.

Except for when the end of the term nears in late June, the court almost always issues decisions on days when the justices are scheduled to take the bench. The next scheduled court day is Tuesday.

And apart from during the coronavirus pandemic, when the court was closed, the justices almost always read summaries of their opinions in the courtroom. They won’t be there Friday.

Any opinions will post on the court’s website beginning just after 10 a.m. EST Friday.

Five Massachusetts college students made their first appearances in court Thursday, accused of plotting to lure a man to their campus through a dating app and then seizing him as part of a “Catch a Predator” trend on TikTok.

The students, all teens at Assumption University, a private, Roman Catholic school in Worcester, were arraigned on conspiracy and kidnapping charges in Worcester District Court. Automatic not guilty pleas were entered for all of them, and they are due back in court March 28 for a pre-trial conference.

The defendants in the case are Kelsy Brainard, 18; Easton Randall, 19; Kevin Carroll, 18; Isabella Trudeau, 18; and Joaquin Smith, 18. There is a sixth defendant who is a juvenile who was expected to be arraigned separately.

Police said Brainard’s Tinder account was used to correspond with the man. She faces an additional charge of witness intimidation. A male student in the group also faces a charge of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

The target — a 22-year-old active-duty military service member — told police that he was in town for his grandmother’s funeral in October and “just wanted to be around people that were happy,” according to a campus police report. He said a student whose Tinder profile said she was 18 invited him over and led him into a basement lounge.

A few minutes later, “a group of people came out of nowhere and started calling him a pedophile,” accusing him of wanting sex with 17-year-old girls, according to the report.

The man told police that he broke free and was chased by at least 25 people to his car, where he was punched in the head and his car door was slammed on him. He fled and called city police.

Campus surveillance video shows a large group of students, including the woman, “all with their cellphones out in what seems to be a recording of the whole episode,” the police statement said. They are seen “laughing and high fiving with each other” in what appeared to be “a deliberately staged event,” and there was no evidence to indicate the man was seeking sexual relations with underage girls, the police report said.

After the assault, Brainard reported the man to police as a sexual predator and said she was frightened by him. She said he had come to campus uninvited and that she texted a male friend who chased him away. All of this was false, campus police concluded after reviewing surveillance recordings and finding that “first person perspective videos” were being circulated among students.

The teens were ordered in court to have no contact with the targeted man. A lawyer for Brainard, Christopher Todd, said, “We’re just looking forward to having the process play out.” The lawyer for Trudeau, Robert Iacovelli, said afterward his client is innocent and he filed a motion seeking dismissal of the charges against her. Other attorneys were not immediately reached for comment about their pleas.

The Supreme Court turned back a push by the state of Utah to wrest control of vast areas of public land from the federal government, marking a small victory for land conservation advocates who worry that similar efforts may escalate in a Republican-controlled Washington.

The high court on Monday refused to let the Republican-controlled state file a lawsuit seeking to bring the land and its resources under state control. The decision came in a brief order in which the court did not explain its reasoning, as is typical. It marks the latest roadblock for states in a running feud with the U.S. government over who should control huge swaths of the West and the enormous oil and gas, timber, and other resources they contain.

Utah’s top state leaders said they have not ruled out taking their lawsuit to a lower court.

In the Western state known for its rugged mountains popular with skiers and red-rock vistas that draw throngs of tourists, federal agencies control almost 70% of the land. Utah argues that local control would be more responsive and allow the state access to revenue from taxes and development projects.

The complaint sought control of about half of federal land, which still amounts to an area nearly as large as South Carolina. The parcels are used for things like energy production, grazing, mining and recreation. Utah’s world-famous national parks and national monuments would have stayed in federal hands.

Monday’s decision by the high court comes as the newly Republican-controlled Congress adopted a rules package that includes language allowing lawmakers to more easily transfer or sell off public lands managed by federal agencies. The rules consider public lands to have no monetary value, meaning lawmakers will no longer need to account for lost revenue if they decide to give parcels to states or extractive industries.

While conservationists applauded the court’s rejection of what they called a land-grab lawsuit, many remained worried that the efforts will continue.

Public lands under state control could be vulnerable to privatization, degradation and oil drilling, said Steve Bloch, legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

“If successful, Utah’s lawsuit would result in the sale of millions of acres of public lands in red-rock country to the highest bidder, an end to America’s system of federal public lands and the dismantling of the American West as we know it,” Bloch said.

Utah’s Republican Sens. Mike Lee and John Curtis criticized the court’s decision and promised legislative action. Curtis, who campaigned on being a climate-conscious Republican, said the people of Utah should be entrusted to manage the land they have lived on for generations.

“Building roads, moving cattle and cleaning up campgrounds all require navigating a behemothic bureaucracy that’s stacked up against the average Utahn,” Curtis said.

In a joint statement with Utah’s Republican legislative leaders and attorney general, Gov. Spencer Cox said he was disappointed in the court’s decision to turn away the lawsuit.

“Utah remains able and willing to challenge any BLM land management decisions that harm Utah,” state leaders said. “We are also heartened to know the incoming administration shares our commitments to the principle of ‘multiple use’ for these federal lands and is committed to working with us to improve land management.”

While lawsuits typically start in federal district courts and eventually work their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, disputes involving states can start at the nation’s highest court if the justices agree to hear them.

Utah leaders noted that the high court did not comment on the merits of their arguments or prevent them from filing the lawsuit in a federal district court. Conservation groups say they’ll remain ready to challenge any future lawsuits.

“This lawsuit is an assault on the country’s long-standing and successful history of safeguarding valuable and vulnerable landscapes in trust for all Americans,” said Chris Hill, who leads the Conservation Lands Foundation. “And while the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the case is a reprieve, we fully expect this small group of anti-public lands politicians to continue to waste taxpayer dollars and shop their bad ideas.”

The federal Bureau of Land Management declined to comment.