Federal agencies have 30 days to remove TikTok from government ...

The White House has announced it's giving federal agencies 30 days to remove TikTok from all government-issued devices.

Monday's move comes as the popular Chinese-owned social media app faces increased scrutiny in Washington and in states across the country over security concerns – with critics claiming that the Chinese government could use TikTok to gain access to private user data or spread misinformation.

TikTok is already not allowed on White House devices. Other federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, have similar restrictions in place.

Now, remaining federal agencies will follow. According to the guidance memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget, all executive agencies and their contractors must remove TikTok or any app from its parent company, ByteDance, within 30 days of Monday's notice – with few exceptions for national security, law enforcement and research purposes.

"The Biden-Harris administration has invested heavily in defending our nation’s digital infrastructure and curbing foreign adversaries’ access to Americans’ data," said Chris DeRusha, the federal chief information security officer. "This guidance is part of the administration’s ongoing commitment to securing our digital infrastructure and protecting the American people’s security and privacy."

Banning TikTok? Restrictions on the popular video app are spreading across the US

More:Is TikTok the new Google? Why TikTok is Gen Z's favorite search engine

The guidance fulfills requirements of the No TikTok on Government Devices Act, which was passed by Congress in December.

Reuters first reported on the guidance.

TikTok, China respond to White House's move

After the White House's move Monday, TikTok spokesperson Brooke Oberwetter called such bans of the social media app "little more than political theater."

"The ban of TikTok on federal devices passed in December without any deliberation, and unfortunately that approach has served as a blueprint for other world governments," Oberwetter said in a statement sent to USA TODAY. "We hope that when it comes to addressing national security concerns about TikTok beyond government devices, Congress will explore solutions that won’t have the effect of censoring the voices of millions of Americans."

In a press briefing Tuesday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry accused the U.S. government of abusing state power.

November:FBI director says TikTok poses national security threat, and he's 'extremely concerned'

"How unsure of itself can the world’s top superpower be to fear a young people’s favorite app like that?" Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said. The U.S. government "has been over-stretching the concept of national security and abusing state power to suppress foreign companies. We firmly oppose those wrong actions."

China has long blocked numerous foreign social media platforms and messaging apps – such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube.

Bill to ban TikTok nationwide

Monday's guidance also arrives as House Republicans were expected to move forward Tuesday with a bill that would give President Joe Biden the power to ban TikTok nationwide – as well as other software applications that threaten national security.

The legislation is proposed by the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas. McCaul has been a vocal critic of TikTok, saying the app is being used by the Chinese Communist Party to "manipulate and monitor its users while it gobbles up Americans’ data to be used for their malign activities."

The American Civil Liberties Union is among those that oppose the bill. In a press release Monday, the ACLU said such a ban would violate First Amendment rights and noted the U.S. government "can’t ban a social media platform simply because the app is from a Chinese company."

In addition to the federal restrictions on TikTok, more than half of U.S. states have issued full or partial bans for state-issued devices.

More:South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem issues executive order blocking TikTok from state devices

What's everyone talking about? Sign up for our trending newsletter to get the latest news of the day.

Also on Monday, Canada announced that it is similarly banning TikTok from all government-issued mobile devices. And last week, the European Union’s executive branch said it has temporarily banned TikTok from employee-used phones for cybersecurity reasons.

Contributing: The Associated Press

TikTok announces 60-minute daily screen time limit for users under ...

TikTok is rolling out a new screen time limit for users under 18.

On Wednesday, the social media platform announced "changes to help teens manage their time on TikTok." Every account belonging to TikTok users under 18 years old will soon automatically set to a 60-minute daily screen limit, the company said.

The default time limit for eligible accounts is expected to arrive in the coming weeks.

There will still be an option for teen TikTokers to continue using the app beyond the 60-minute limit – but they will have to enter a prompted passcode, "requiring them to make an active decision to extend that time," Cormac Keenan, head of trust and safety at TikTok, wrote in Wednesday's announcement.

"While there's no collectively-endorsed position on the 'right' amount of screen time or even the impact of screen time more broadly, we consulted the current academic research and experts from the Digital Wellness Lab at Boston Children's Hospital in choosing this limit," Keenan wrote, while also citing research supported by TikTok.

In addition to mounting concerns surrounding the time teens spend on social media overall, TikTok's move arrives as the popular Chinese-owned app faces increased scrutiny in Washington over security concerns.

White House:Federal agencies have 30 days to remove TikTok from government-issued devices

Tick-tock, TikTok:As Biden sets deadline for ban of social media app, here's what we know

On Monday, the White House announced that federal agencies have 30 days to remove TikTok from all government-issued devices, and House Republicans are pushing for a nationwide ban. TikTok spokesperson Brooke Oberwetter called such bans of the social media app "little more than political theater."

Screen time is skyrocketing among young people

TikTok's screen limit changes come as experts around the world stress concerns over the rising time that young people spend on screens, particularly on platforms like TikTok and other social media apps, with studies pointing to impacts on both physical and mental health.

Kids and screen time:How parents can manage during prolonged pandemic

A study from Common Sense media, a nonprofit research organization, noted that the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the growth in screen time – with media use among tweens (defined in the study as kids age 8 to 12) and teens rising 17% from 2019 to 2021.

In 2021, tweens used an average of five hours and 33 minutes of screen media each day and teens had an average of eight hours and 39 minutes, the study said.

In a statement Wednesday, Common Sense Media founder and CEO James P. Steyer said TikTok's "new features, particularly the screen time limits, are definitely a positive step to create a safer space for teens and families, but TikTok also needs to go further."

"TikTok continues to capture users' personal data and often nudges teens toward harmful content that can expose them to drugs, eating disorders, violence and more," Steyer continued. "The nation's youth mental health crisis is rampant, and all social media companies need to make teens' well-being a priority, not merely an afterthought."

Screen controls for parents, caregivers

In addition to the default screen time limit, Keenan said that TikTok will send every teen account a weekly recap of their screen time.

TikTok is also introducing several new features to "Family Pairing," which allows parents, caregivers and their children to customize safety settings.

Among the new features, caregivers will be able to set daily screen time limits for their teens – including scheduling different time limits for certain days of the week – mute notifications for certain times of the day and use a screen time dashboard to see how much their teens are using the app.

Experts note that the needs of each family and individual are different. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends creating a family media plan to help navigate screen habits and customize priorities.

Study:Screen time among teenagers during COVID more than doubled outside of virtual school

What's everyone talking about? Sign up for our trending newsletter to get the latest news of the day.

Beyond families and teen users, TikTok said screen time controls will be available to everyone.

"Everyone will soon be able to set their own customized screen time limits for each day of the week and set a schedule to mute notifications," Keenan wrote. "In addition, we're rolling out a sleep reminder to help people more easily plan when they want to be offline at night. People can set a time, and when it's reached, a pop-up will remind them it's time to log off."

TikTok bans: What we know about government efforts to ban the app

Once portrayed as nothing more than a dance app for kids, TikTok is under renewed federal scrutiny over its possible implications for national security.

The White House on Monday moved to ban the popular Chinese-owned social media platform from all government-issued devices, giving federal agencies 30 days to delete the app. The guidance has exceptions for "law enforcement activities, national security interests and activities, and security research."

Meanwhile, House Republicans are expected to move forward Tuesday with a bill that would give President Joe Biden the power to enact nationwide bans on TikTok and other software applications that are threatening to national security.

Here's what we know.

Why is the government concerned about TikTok?

The Biden administration and lawmakers in both parties have expressed concern that the Chinese Communist Party could gather information about American customers through TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, or that it could be used to spread misinformation.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, called TikTok “an enormous threat” in an interview last year.

"TikTok is the Chinese Communist Party's backdoor into American phones," Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, the House Foreign Affairs Committee chair who introduced the bill that would make it easier for Biden to ban the app.

In 2020, Biden said that TikTok is a “matter of genuine concern.” But last month, the president indicated he's "not sure" whether a ban is the right call.

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified in December the agency was concerned about Chinese officials controlling the app’s algorithm and argued the app could be used "to collect data through it on users which can be used for traditional espionage operations."

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said in December he "welcomes" a TikTok ban on federal devices. "Every day that this drags on is another day that Americans are left exposed to the unique threats posed by TikTok," he said.

Why will TikTok be banned on government-issued devices?

The White House's push to remove TikTok from government-issued devices is part of a broader efforts to secure American "digital infrastructure," security and privacy, according to a memo released Monday.

The guidance fulfills requirements of the "No TikTok on Government Devices Act," passed by the Senate in December.

What does the White House say?

The White House is taking "every step" it can within its authority to protect American data, Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia Dalton said Tuesday.

“We've been clear about our concerns about apps like TikTok," she said. "The Biden administration is focused on the challenge of certain countries, including China, seeking to leverage digital technologies and Americans data in ways that present unacceptable national security risks."

Dalton declined to comment on McCaul's bill and whether there should be a federal ban on the social media app.

What does TikTok say?

TikTok spokesperson Brooke Oberwetter said Monday that banning the app is "little more than political theater."

"The ban of TikTok on federal devices passed in December without any deliberation, and unfortunately that approach has served as a blueprint for other world governments," Oberwetter said in a statement sent to USA TODAY. "We hope that when it comes to addressing national security concerns about TikTok beyond government devices, Congress will explore solutions that won’t have the effect of censoring the voices of millions of Americans."

What does China say?

In a Tuesday press briefing, the Chinese Foreign Ministry accused the U.S. government of abusing state power.

"How unsure of itself can the world’s top superpower be to fear a young people’s favorite app like that?" Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said. The U.S. government "has been over-stretching the concept of national security and abusing state power to suppress foreign companies. We firmly oppose those wrong actions."

How many people use TikTok?

Oberwetter declined to share with USA TODAY an exact number of monthly TikTok users in the U.S., but said that "over 100 million" people use the app each month.

The app is particularly prevalent among young people; some 67% of teens say they use TikTok, with 16% saying they use it "almost constantly," according to PEW Research Center data.

Has a ban been attempted before?

Former President Donald Trump in 2020 issued executive orders to ban TikTok and another app with roots in China, but the bans were stopped in court. The Biden White House revoked Trump's orders in June 2021.

The Senate voted in December on bipartisan legislation to ban TikTok from government phones, but it didn't pass the House.

Is an all-out TikTok ban next?

It's unclear whether Congress or the Biden administration would move to ban all access to the app nationwide.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., introduced legislation in January that would ban the app from being downloaded on any U.S. device.

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew will testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee about the popular app’s privacy and security practices in March. It’s the first time a TikTok CEO will appear before a congressional committee.

Dig deeper:

Contributing: Wyatte Grantham-Philips, Bart Jansen

CNN Exclusive: FBI investigation determined Chinese-made ...

Washington CNN —

On paper, it looked like a fantastic deal. In 2017, the Chinese government was offering to spend $100 million to build an ornate Chinese garden at the National Arboretum in Washington DC. Complete with temples, pavilions and a 70-foot white pagoda, the project thrilled local officials, who hoped it would attract thousands of tourists every year.

But when US counterintelligence officials began digging into the details, they found numerous red flags. The pagoda, they noted, would have been strategically placed on one of the highest points in Washington DC, just two miles from the US Capitol, a perfect spot for signals intelligence collection, multiple sources familiar with the episode told CNN.

Also alarming was that Chinese officials wanted to build the pagoda with materials shipped to the US in diplomatic pouches, which US Customs officials are barred from examining, the sources said.

Federal officials quietly killed the project before construction was underway. The Wall Street Journal first reported about the security concerns in 2018.

The canceled garden is part of a frenzy of counterintelligence activity by the FBI and other federal agencies focused on what career US security officials say has been a dramatic escalation of Chinese espionage on US soil over the past decade.

Since at least 2017, federal officials have investigated Chinese land purchases near critical infrastructure, shut down a high-profile regional consulate believed by the US government to be a hotbed of Chinese spies and stonewalled what they saw as clear efforts to plant listening devices near sensitive military and government facilities.

Among the most alarming things the FBI uncovered pertains to Chinese-made Huawei equipment atop cell towers near US military bases in the rural Midwest. According to multiple sources familiar with the matter, the FBI determined the equipment was capable of capturing and disrupting highly restricted Defense Department communications, including those used by US Strategic Command, which oversees the country’s nuclear weapons.

While broad concerns about Huawei equipment near US military installations have been well known, the existence of this investigation and its findings have never been reported. Its origins stretch back to at least the Obama administration. It was described to CNN by more than a dozen sources, including current and former national security officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

F.E. Warren Air Force Base, a strategic missile base, is located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, an area near a host of cell towers using Huawei equipment. From F.E. Warren Air Force Base/Facebook

It’s unclear if the intelligence community determined whether any data was actually intercepted and sent back to Beijing from these towers. Sources familiar with the issue say that from a technical standpoint, it’s incredibly difficult to prove a given package of data was stolen and sent overseas.

The Chinese government strongly denies any efforts to spy on the US. Huawei in a statement to CNN also denied that its equipment is capable of operating in any communications spectrum allocated to the Defense Department.

But multiple sources familiar with the investigation tell CNN that there’s no question the Huawei equipment has the ability to intercept not only commercial cell traffic but also the highly restricted airwaves used by the military and disrupt critical US Strategic Command communications, giving the Chinese government a potential window into America’s nuclear arsenal.

“This gets into some of the most sensitive things we do,” said one former FBI official with knowledge of the investigation. “It would impact our ability for essentially command and control with the nuclear triad. “That goes into the ‘BFD’ category.”

“If it is possible for that to be disrupted, then that is a very bad day,” this person added.

Turning doves into hawks

Former officials described the probe’s findings as a watershed moment. The investigation was so secret that some senior policymakers in the White House and elsewhere in government weren’t briefed on its existence until 2019, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

That fall, the Federal Communications Commission initiated a rule that effectively banned small telecoms from using Huawei and a few other brands of Chinese made-equipment. “The existence of the investigation at the highest levels turned some doves into hawks,” said one former US official.

In 2020, Congress approved $1.9 billion to remove Chinese-made Huawei and ZTE cellular technology across wide swaths of rural America.

But two years later, none of that equipment has been removed and rural telecom companies are still waiting for federal reimbursement money. The FCC received applications to remove some 24,000 pieces of Chinese-made communications equipment—but according to a July 15 update from the commission, it is more than $3 billion short of the money it needs to reimburse all eligible companies.

Absent more money from Congress, the FCC says it plans to begin reimbursing approved companies for about 40 percent of the costs of removing Huawei equipment. The FCC did not specify a timeframe on when the money will be disbursed.

In late 2020, the Justice Department referred its national security concerns about Huawei equipment to the Commerce Department, and provided information on where the equipment was in place in the US, a former senior US law enforcement official told CNN.

After the Biden administration took office in 2021, the Commerce Department then opened its own probe into Huawei to determine if more urgent action was needed to expunge the Chinese technology provider from US telecom networks, the former law enforcement official and a current senior US official said.

That probe has proceeded slowly and is ongoing, the current US official said. Among the concerns that national security officials noted was that external communication from the Huawei equipment that occurs when software is updated, for example, could be exploited by the Chinese government.

Depending on what the Commerce Department finds, US telecom carriers could be forced to quickly remove Huawei equipment or face fines or other penalties.

Reuters first reported the existence of the Commerce Department probe.

“We cannot confirm or deny ongoing investigations, but we are committed to securing our information and communications technology and services supply chain. Protecting US persons safety and security against malign information collection is vital to protecting our economy and national security,” a Commerce Department spokesperson said.

Video Ad Feedback Inside Huawei's connection to rural America 02:55 - Source: CNN

US counterintelligence officials have recently made a priority of publicizing threats from China. This month, the US National Counterintelligence and Security Center issued a warning to American businesses and local and state governments about what it says are disguised efforts by China to manipulate them to influence US policy.

FBI Director Christopher Wray just traveled to London for a joint meeting with top British law enforcement officials to call attention to the Chinese threats.

In an exclusive interview with CNN, Wray said the FBI opens a new China counterintelligence investigation every 12 hours. “That’s probably about 2,000 or so investigations,” said Wray. “And that’s not even talking about their cyber theft, where they have a bigger hacking program than that of every other major nation combined, and have stolen more of Americans’ personal and corporate data than every nation combined.”

Asked why after years of national security concerns raised over Huawei, the equipment is still largely in place atop cell towers near US military bases, Wray said that, “We’re concerned about allowing any company that is beholden to a nation state that doesn’t adhere to and share our values, giving that company the ability to burrow into our telecommunications infrastructure.”

He noted that in 2020, the DOJ indicted Huawei with racketeering conspiracy and conspiracy to steal trade secrets.

“And I think that’s probably about all I can say on the topic,” said Wray.

Critics see xenophobic overreach

Despite its tough talk, the US government’s refusal to provide evidence to back up its claims that Huawei tech poses a risk to US national security has led some critics to accuse it of xenophobic overreach. The lack of a smoking gun also raises questions of whether US officials can separate legitimate Chinese investment from espionage.

“All of our products imported to the US have been tested and certified by the FCC before being deployed there,” Huawei said in its statement to CNN. “Our equipment only operates on the spectrum allocated by the FCC for commercial use. This means it cannot access any spectrum allocated to the DOD.”

“For more than 30 years, Huawei has maintained a proven track record in cyber security and we have never been involved in any malicious cyber security incidents,” the statement said.

In its zeal to sniff out evidence of Chinese spying, critics argue the feds have cast too wide a net — in particular as it relates to academic institutions. In one recent high-profile case, a federal judge acquitted a former University of Tennessee engineering professor whom the Justice Department had prosecuted under its so-called China Initiative that targets Chinese spying, arguing “there was no evidence presented that [the professor] ever collaborated with a Chinese university in conducting NASA-funded research.”

And on Jan. 20, the Justice Department dropped a separate case against an MIT professor accused of hiding his ties to China, saying it could no longer prove its case. In February, the Biden administration shut down the China Initiative entirely.

The federal government’s reticence across multiple administrations to detail what it knows has led some critics to accuse the government of chasing ghosts.

“It really comes down to: do you treat China as a neutral actor — because if you treat China as a neutral actor, then yeah, this seems crazy, that there’s some plot behind every tree,” said Anna Puglisi, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology. “However, China has shown us through its policies and actions it is not a neutral actor.”

Chinese tech in the American heartland

As early as the Obama administration, FBI agents were monitoring a disturbing pattern along stretches of Interstate 25 in Colorado and Montana, and on arteries into Nebraska. The heavily trafficked corridor connects some of the most secretive military installations in the US, including an archipelago of nuclear missile silos.

For years, small, rural telecom providers had been installing cheaper, Chinese-made routers and other technology atop cell towers up and down I-25 and elsewhere in the region. Across much of these sparsely populated swaths of the west, these smaller carriers are the only option for cell coverage. And many of them turned to Huawei for cheaper, reliable equipment.

Beginning in late 2011, Viaero, the largest regional provider in the area, inked a contract with Huawei to provide the equipment for its upgrade to 3G. A decade later, it has Huawei tech installed across its entire fleet of towers, roughly 1,000 spread over five western states.

As Huawei equipment began to proliferate near US military bases, federal investigators started taking notice, sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Of particular concern was that Huawei was routinely selling cheap equipment to rural providers in cases that appeared to be unprofitable for Huawei — but which placed its equipment near military assets.

Federal investigators initially began “examining [Huawei] less from a technical lens and more from a business/financial view,” explained John Lenkart, a former senior FBI agent focused on counterintelligence issues related to China. Officials studied where Huawei sales efforts were most concentrated and looked for deals that “made no sense from a return-on-investment perspective,” Lenkart said.

“A lot of [counterintelligence] concerns were uncovered based on” those searches, Lenkart said.

By examining the Huawei equipment themselves, FBI investigators determined it could recognize and disrupt DOD-spectrum communications — even though it had been certified by the FCC, according to a source familiar with the investigation.

“It’s not technically hard to make a device that complies with the FCC that listens to nonpublic bands but then is quietly waiting for some activation trigger to listen to other bands,” said Eduardo Rojas, who leads the radio spectrum lab at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida. “Technically, it’s feasible.”

To prove a device had clandestine capabilities, Rojas said, would require technical experts to strip down a device “to the semi-conductor level” and “reverse engineer the design.” But, he said, it can be done.

And there was another big concern along I-25, sources familiar with the investigation said.

Weather camera worries

Around 2014, Viaero started mounting high-definition surveillance cameras on its towers to live-stream weather and traffic, a public service it shared with local news organizations. With dozens of cameras posted up and down I-25, the cameras provided a 24-7 bird’s eye view of traffic and incoming weather, even providing advance warning of tornadoes.

But they were also inadvertently capturing the movement of US military equipment and personnel, giving Beijing — or anyone for that matter — the ability to track the pattern of activity between a series of closely guarded military facilities.

The intelligence community determined the publicly posted live-streams were being viewed and likely captured from China, according to three sources familiar with the matter. Two sources briefed on the investigation at the time said officials believed that it was possible for Beijing’s intelligence service to “task” the cameras — hack into the network and control where they pointed. At least some of the cameras in question were running on Huawei networks.

Viaero CEO Frank DiRico said it never occurred to him the cameras could be a national security risk.

“There’s a lot of missile silos in areas we cover. There is some military presence,” DiRico said in an interview from his Colorado office. But, he said, “I was never told to remove the equipment or to make any changes.”

In fact, DiRico first learned of government concerns about Huawei equipment from newspaper articles — not the FBI — and says he has never been briefed on the matter.

DiRico doesn’t question the government’s insistence that he needs to remove Huawei equipment, but he is skeptical that China’s intelligence services can exploit either the Huawei hardware itself or the camera equipment.

“We monitor our network pretty good,” DiRico said, adding that Viaero took over the support and maintenance for its own networks from Huawei shortly after installation. “We feel we’ve got a pretty good idea if there’s anything going on that’s inappropriate.”

Scouring the country for Chinese investments

By the time the I-25 investigation was briefed to the White House in 2019, counterintelligence officials begin looking for other places Chinese companies might be buying land or offering to develop a piece of municipal property, like a park or an old factory, sometimes as part of a “sister city” arrangement.

In one instance, officials shut down what they believed was a risky commercial deal near highly sensitive military testing installations in Utah sometime after the beginning of the I-25 investigation, according to one former US official. The military has a test and training range for hypersonic weapons in Utah, among other things. Sources declined to provide more details.

Federal officials were also alarmed by what sources described as a host of espionage and influence activities in Houston and, in 2020, shut down the Chinese consulate there.

US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Richard P. Donoghue announcing indictments against China's Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, several of its subsidiaries and its chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou on January 28, 2019. Joshua Roberts/Reuters

Bill Evanina, who until early last year ran the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, told CNN that it can sometimes be hard to differentiate between a legitimate business opportunity and espionage — in part because both might be happening at the same time.

“What we’ve seen is legitimate companies that are three times removed from Beijing buy [a given] facility for obvious logical reasons, unaware of what the [Chinese] intelligence apparatus wants in that parcel [of land],” Evanina said. “What we’ve seen recently — it’s been what’s underneath the land.”

“The hard part is, that’s legitimate business, and what city or town is not going to want to take that money for that land when it’s just sitting there doing nothing?” he added.

A complicated problem

After the results of the I-25 investigation were briefed to the Trump White House in 2019, the FCC ordered that telecom companies who receive federal subsidies to provide cell service to remote areas — companies like Viaero — must “rip and replace” their Huawei and ZTE equipment.

The FCC has since said that the cost could be more than double the $1.9 billion appropriated in 2020 and absent an additional appropriation from Congress, the agency is only planning to reimburse companies for a fraction of their costs.

Given the staggering strategic risk, Lenkart said, “rip and replace is a very blunt and inefficient remediation.”

DiRico, the CEO of Viaero, said the cost of “rip and replace” is astronomical and that he doesn’t expect the reimbursement money to be enough to pay for the change. According to the FCC, Viaero is expected to receive less than half of the funding it is actually due. Still, he expects to start removing the equipment within the next year.

“It’s difficult and it’s a lot of money,” DiRico said.

Some former counterintelligence officials expressed frustration that the US government isn’t providing more granular detail about what it knows to companies — or to cities and states considering a Chinese investment proposal. They believe that not only would that kind of detail help private industry and state and local governments understand the seriousness of the threat as they see it, but also help combat the criticism that the US government is targeting Chinese companies and people, rather than Chinese state-run espionage.

“This government has to do a better job of letting everyone know this is a Communist Party issue, it’s not a Chinese people issue,” Evanina said. “And I’ll be the first to say that the government has to do better with respect to understanding the Communist Party’s intentions are not the same intentions of the Chinese people.”

A current FBI official said the bureau is giving more defensive briefings to US businesses, academic institutions and state and local governments that include far more detail than in the past, but officials are still fighting an uphill battle.

“Sometimes I feel like we’re a lifeguard going out to a drowning person, and they don’t want our help,” said the current FBI official. But, this person said, “I think sometimes we [the FBI] say ‘China threat,’ and we take for granted what all that means in our head. And it means something else to the people that we’re delivering it to.”

“I think we just need to be more careful about how we speak about it and educate folks on why we’re doing what we’re doing.”

In the meantime, the “rip and replace” program has remained fiercely controversial.

“It’s not going to be easy,” DiRico said. “I’m going to be up nights worrying about it, but we’ll do what we’re told to do.”

This story has been updated to reference Wall Street Journal reporting.

FBI took 11 sets of classified material from Trump's Mar-a-Lago ...

CNN —

The Justice Department removed 11 sets of classified documents from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence while executing a search warrant this week for possible violations of the Espionage Act and other crimes, according to court documents unsealed and released on Friday.

The property receipt, which was also released on Friday, for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home shows that some of the materials recovered were marked as “top secret/SCI” – one of the highest levels of classification.

The search warrant identifies three federal crimes that the Justice Department is looking at as part of its investigation: violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice and criminal handling of government records. The inclusion of the crimes indicates the Justice Department has probable cause to investigate those offenses as it was gathering evidence in the search. No one has been charged with a crime at this time.

The warrant receipt didn’t detail the subject of these classified documents but did note that federal agents seized just one set marked “top secret/SCI.”

Agents also took four sets of “top secret” documents, three sets of “secret” documents, and three sets of “confidential” documents, court documents show. In total, the unsealed warrant shows the FBI collected more than 20 boxes, as well as binders of photos, sets of classified government materials and at least one handwritten note.

The warrant, which was unsealed and released publicly following a federal judge’s order, was obtained by CNN ahead of its release. The moment marks an unprecedented week that began with the search – an evidence-gathering step in a national security investigation.

Search warrant reveals new details about scope of FBI probe

While details about the documents themselves remain scarce, the laws cited in the warrant offer new insight into what the FBI was looking for when it searched Trump’s home, an unprecedented step that has prompted a firestorm of criticism from the former President’s closest allies.

The laws cover “destroying or concealing documents to obstruct government investigations” and the unlawful removal of government records, according to the search warrant released Friday.

Also among the laws listed is one known as the Espionage Act, which relates to the “retrieval, storage, or transmission of national defense information or classified material.”

All three criminal laws cited in the warrant are from Title 18 of the United States Code. None of them solely hinge on whether information was deemed to be unclassified.

One of the less-sensitive items taken from Trump’s resort, according to a the property receipt, was a document about pardoning Roger Stone, a staunch Trump ally who was convicted in 2019 of lying to Congress during its probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election. (Trump pardoned Stone before leaving office, shielding Stone from a three-year prison term.)

It’s unclear how the Stone-related document seized during the search is tied to the broader criminal probe into Trump’s potential mishandling of classified materials.

During the search, FBI agents also recovered material about the “President of France,” according to the warrant receipt. The French embassy in Washington declined to respond Friday to the development.

FBI agents searched ’45 Office’ at Mar-a-Lago

The court documents released Friday also offer new details about the search itself and revealed that FBI agents were only allowed access to specific locations within Mar-a-Lago as they combed Trump’s resort residence for potential evidence of crimes.

The judge authorized the FBI to search what the bureau called the “45 Office,” an apparent reference to Trump’s place in history as the 45th President. Agents were also permitted to search “all other rooms or areas” at Mar-a-Lago that were available to Trump and his staff for storing boxes and documents.

“The locations to be searched include the ’45 Office,’ all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored, including all structures or buildings on the estate,” the warrant says, using the acronym “FPOTUS” to refer to the Former President of the United States.

The FBI’s warrant application to the judge specifically said that federal agents would avoid areas being rented or used by third parties, “such as Mar-a-Lago members” and “private guest suites.” Trump owns the sprawling estate, and it is his primary residence as well as a members-only club and resort.

“It is described as a mansion with approximately 58 bedrooms, 33 bathrooms, on a 17-acre estate,” FBI agents told the judge in their application, describing the Mar-a-Lago property.

Trump did not oppose release of search warrant

The FBI search at the resort in Palm Beach, Florida, on Monday was followed by days of silence from the Justice Department, as is the department’s normal practice for ongoing investigations.

Then on Thursday, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the department had moved to unseal the search warrant and two attachments, including an inventory list, but also stressed that some of the department’s work must happen outside of public view.

“We do that to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations,” Garland said, while explaining that he would not provide more detail about the basis of the search.

Trump said in a late-night post on his Truth Social platform Thursday that he would “not oppose the release of documents” and that he was “going a step further by ENCOURAGING the immediate release of those documents.”

The court had instructed the Justice Department to confer with Trump about its request to unseal the warrant documents and set a Friday deadline to report back on whether he opposed their release.

Trump’s team had contacted outside attorneys about how to proceed, and the former President’s orbit was caught off guard by Garland’s announcement.

In a pair of posts to Truth Social following Garland’s statement, Trump continued to claim that his attorneys were “cooperating fully” and had developed “very good relationships” with federal investigators prior to Monday’s search at Mar-a-Lago.

“The government could have had whatever they wanted, if we had it,” Trump said. “Everything was fine, better than most previous Presidents, and then, out of nowhere and with no warning, Mar-a-Lago was raided, at 6:30 in the morning, by VERY large numbers of agents, and even ‘safecrackers.’”

This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.

Katelyn Polantz Zachary Cohen Sara Murray Marshall Cohen

Biden administration scales back student loan forgiveness plan as ...

Washington CNN —

The Biden administration scaled back eligibility for its student loan forgiveness plan Thursday, the same day six Republican-led states sued President Joe Biden in an effort to block his student loan forgiveness plan from taking effect.

Borrowers whose federal student loans are guaranteed by the government but held by private lenders will now be excluded from receiving debt relief. Around 770,000 people will be affected by the change, according to an administration official.

The Department of Education initially said these loans, many of which were made under the former Federal Family Education Loan program and Federal Perkins Loan program, would be eligible for the one-time forgiveness action as long as the borrower consolidated his or her debt into the federal Direct loan program.

On Thursday, the department reversed course. According to its website, privately held federal student loans must have been consolidated before September 29 in order to be eligible for the debt relief.

Borrowers with privately held federal student loans who have not consolidated yet are currently out of luck, though the Department of Education said it “is assessing whether there are alternative pathways” to provide relief.

Borrowers with privately held federal student loans represent a small portion of the 43 million federal student loan borrowers. There are about 4 million borrowers with Federal Family Education Loans, but not all of those people are likely eligible for the loan forgiveness plan, which also includes an income requirement.

“Our goal is to provide relief to as many eligible borrowers as quickly and easily as possible, and this will allow us to achieve that goal while we continue to explore additional legally-available options to provide relief to borrowers with privately owned FFEL loans and Perkins loans, including whether FFEL borrowers could receive one-time debt relief without needing to consolidate,” the Department of Education said in an emailed statement.

“Borrowers with privately held federal student loans who applied to consolidate their loans into Direct Loans before September 29, 2022 will obtain one-time debt relief. The FFEL program is now defunct and only a small percentage of borrowers have FFEL loans. This is a completely different program than Direct Loans,” the statement said.

Lawsuit argues forgiveness will hurt loan servicers

The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Missouri by state attorneys general from Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska and South Carolina, as well as legal representatives from Iowa.

“In addition to being economically unwise and inherently unfair, the Biden Administration’s Mass Debt Cancellation is another example in a long line of unlawful regulatory actions. No statute permits President Biden to unilaterally relieve millions of individuals from their obligation to pay loans they voluntarily assumed,” Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson’s office said in a news release.

The plaintiffs argued that student loan servicers – including the Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, known as MOHELA – are harmed by Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. It argues that the plan creates an incentive for borrowers to consolidate Federal Family Education Loans owned by MOHELA into Direct Loans owned by the government, “depriving them (MOHELA) of the ongoing revenue it earns from servicing those loans,” according to the lawsuit.

But the Department of Education’s move to exclude borrowers with privately held federal loans from the student loan forgiveness plan could weaken that legal argument, said Luke Herrine, an assistant law professor at the University of Alabama who previously worked on a legal strategy pushing for student debt cancellation.

The White House continues to argue that its student loan forgiveness plan is legal.

“Republican officials from these six states are standing with special interests, and fighting to stop relief for borrowers buried under mountains of debt,”said White House spokesman Abdullah Hasan in an emailed statement.

“The President and his administration are lawfully giving working and middle class families breathing room as they recover from the pandemic and prepare to resume loan payments in January,” he said.

Federal student loan payments have been paused since March 2020, thanks to a pandemic-related benefit. The pause expires on December 31.

Earlier this week, a public interest lawyer who is also a student loan borrower, sued the Biden administration over the student loan forgiveness plan, arguing that the policy is an abuse of executive power and that it would stick him with a bigger state tax bill.

How Biden’s plan will work

Under Biden’s plan, individual borrowers who earned less than $125,000 in either 2020 or 2021 and married couples or heads of households who made less than $250,000 annually in those years will see up to $10,000 of their federal student loan debt forgiven.

If a qualifying borrower also received a federal Pell grant while enrolled in college, the individual is eligible for up to $20,000 of debt forgiveness. Pell grants are awarded to millions of low-income students each year, based on factors that include their family’s size and income and the cost charged by their college. These borrowers are also more likely to struggle to repay their student debt and end up in default.

The administration is expected to roll out the first wave of student loan forgiveness in October.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated this week – before the administration excluded FFEL borrowers – that Biden’s plan could cost the government $400 billion but warned that the estimate relies on several assumptions and is “highly uncertain.”

Estimating the cost of student debt forgiveness is complicated because loans are generally paid back over several years. The White House argues that the CBO’s estimate should be looked at over a 30-year time frame.

Untested legal waters

Biden announced the forgiveness plan in August, after facing mounting pressure from Democrats to forgive some student loan debt. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren repeatedly called on the President to cancel up to $50,000 in student loan debt per borrower.

But canceling federal student loan debt so broadly is unprecedented and, until now, has yet to be tested in court. Biden initially urged Congress to take action to cancel some student debt, rather than wade into a murky legal area himself, but Democrats don’t have the votes to pass such legislation.

In a Department of Education memo released in August, the Biden administration argued that the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 – or Heroes Act – grants the Education Secretary the power to cancel student debt to help address the financial harm suffered due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Heroes Act, which was enacted in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, “provides the Secretary broad authority to grant relief from student loan requirements during specific periods,” including a war, other military operation or national emergency, according to the memo.

The lawsuit filed Thursday argues that the Heroes Act does not grant the President such broad authority.

What happens next

Additional lawsuits challenging Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan could be forthcoming. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, has said he is working on developing the best legal theory to sue the administration over the action.

A conservative advocacy group called the Job Creators Network is also weighing its legal options, planning to file a lawsuit once the Department of Education formalizes the student loan forgiveness plan next month.

But some legal experts are skeptical that a legal challenge to Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan could be successful.

Abby Shafroth, staff attorney at the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center, previously told CNN that she believes the merits of the Biden administration’s legal statutory authority are strong and that it’s unclear who would have legal standing to bring a case and want to do so. Standing to bring a case is a procedural threshold requiring that an injury be inflicted on a plaintiff to justify a lawsuit.

If the standing hurdle is cleared, a case would be heard by a district court first – which may or may not issue a preliminary injunction to prevent the cancellation from occurring before a final ruling is issued on the merits of the hypothetical case.

Several recent US Supreme Court decisions have touched on executive power, limiting the federal government’s authority to implement new rules. While the Supreme Court takes up a small number of cases each year, lower courts may look at what the justices have said in those cases when assessing the Department of Education’s authority.

This story has been updated with additional information.

As states plan to lift school mask mandates, CDC remains vague on ...

CNN —

As many states see declines in their daily Covid-19 case numbers and hospitalization rates, some have moved forward with plans to lift a significant mitigation measure: mask mandates in schools.

The moves go against guidance from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but the agency has remained mum about the states’ decisions, simply telling CNN on Monday that it still recommends universal masking for all in schools.

However, some public health experts have questioned whether it’s time for the CDC to update its school guidance, especially as the nation mulls over what life after the pandemic might look like. Without federal guidance on when and how to transition out of the pandemic phase and into a Covid-19 endemic phase, some states are taking steps on their own.

‘Dropping like a rock’

The Democratic governors of three East Coast states – Connecticut, Delaware and New Jersey – announced Monday that they will lift mask requirements in schools in the coming weeks.

In Connecticut, Gov. Ned Lamont said he recommends ending the statewide mask mandate in schools and childcare centers effective February 28, leaving decisions on mask requirements in schools to officials at the local level.

In Delaware, Gov. John Carney said that public and private K-12 mask mandates will expire March 31, and in New Jersey, Gov. Phil Murphy said the state’s universal mask mandate for schools and child-care settings will lift March 7.

All three states referenced declines in their Covid-19 case counts, hospitalizations, test positivity rates and rates of transmission as reasons why they are planning to lift restrictions.

“Our case count, hospitalizations, the spot positivity rate, the rate of transmission are all dropping like a rock,” Murphy told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Monday, adding that the state is making progress with vaccinations and that there will be better ventilation options in four weeks, when the mask mandate lifts.

“We’ve adhered overwhelmingly with the CDC guidance. The reason why we’re making this step today is our reality in New Jersey,” Murphy said. “We are now in a dramatically different place than the norm right now across the country, which is why we feel like we can decouple and take this step.”

Also Monday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that the state’s indoor mask requirement will expire February 15, though unvaccinated people will still need to wear masks indoors. He noted that California’s case rate has decreased 65% since its Omicron peak, and hospitalizations have stabilized across the state.

And the Oregon Health Authority announced Monday that the state will remove general mask requirements for indoor public places no later than March 31.

But as these states change their policies, the White House has not changed its position.

“The guidance is very clear, which is that we recommend masking in schools. That is the recommendation from the CDC,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said during a news briefing Monday, referring to the CDC’s guidance urging universal mask-wearing in schools for everyone 2 and older, regardless of a person’s vaccination status.

“It is also true that at some point when the science and the data warrants, of course, our hope is that that’s no longer the recommendation – and they are continually assessing that,” Psaki said of CDC officials. “It is also true that it’s always been up to local school districts to make determinations about how to implement these policies.”

CDC spokesperson Jade Fulce wrote in an email to CNN on Monday that “CDC guidance is meant to supplement — not replace — any federal, state, tribal, local, or territorial health and safety laws, rules, and regulations. The adoption and implementation of our guidance should be done in collaboration with regulatory agencies and state, tribal, local, and territorial public health departments, and in compliance with state and local policies and practices.”

When asked whether the CDC plan to release any updated guidance on when it’s appropriate to lift mask mandates in schools, the agency responded that “CDC continuously reviews data on the pandemic as well as the latest science to identify when changes to guidance are recommended.”

‘There has been … a lack of clarity for some time’

The CDC could improve its communications with state leaders and the public regarding its mask guidance – including when and why mask mandates should be implemented, what the benefits are, and the science and data behind such recommendations, Glen Nowak, co-director of the Center for Health & Risk Communication at the University of Georgia and former head of media relations for the CDC, told CNN on Monday.

“There has been, I think, a lack of clarity for some time regarding what the end goal is,” Nowak said.

“Even now, it would help if the CDC talked about what they were thinking or what they were doing, if anything, with respect to updating their mask guidelines and recommendations,” Nowak said. “What efforts are underway, and what are they trying to do? What are they trying to learn? I think, right now probably still among many people, that’s sort of a mystery.”

State and local officials have had to “take matters into their own hands” when it comes to changing school mask mandates, and that’s bad news for federal public health authorities, CNN Medical Analyst Dr. Leana Wen told CNN’s John Berman on Monday.

“That means that the federal government is becoming less and less relevant,” said Wen, who is also an emergency physician and professor of health policy and management at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. “If the CDC guidance that they’re putting out is now not being followed by virtually anyone, that makes the CDC and our federal public health authorities have less credibility.

“And so I really believe that they need to be changing their guidance, and look, they don’t have to do it overnight. They can say ‘here is an off-ramp to masking. You meet these criteria, and this is how you can begin to remove masks or remove other restrictions.’ But we need to hear their leadership here. The CDC has already lost a lot of trust and credibility. This is their time to rebuild and remove restrictions as quickly as they were put in.”

When it comes to lifting mask mandates, the decisions are typically based on the risk of someone getting infected with the coronavirus within the community, Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, told CNN on Monday.

“If you’re fully vaccinated and boosted, and the broad community spread is low to moderate, then your risk is low,” Benjamin said. In New Jersey and some other states that plan to lift school mask mandates, state officials project that community spread of Covid-19 will probably be low.

Benjamin added that as the country looks ahead, beyond the public health emergency phase of Covid-19, it might be time for the CDC to update its guidance on mask-wearing in schools and the surrounding communities, especially as such guidance is based on data from Covid-19 case counts and test positivity rates in communities. Many people test for Covid-19 at home, which can skew data if they don’t report their results.

Separately, many state governors and leading public health experts are also calling for the White House to release guidance on what the end of the pandemic, and a transition into an endemic phase, might look like for the country. “Endemic” means a disease has a constant presence in a population but isn’t overwhelming health systems or affecting an alarmingly large number of people, as typically seen in a pandemic.

Consideration for lifting mask mandates

As some governors set timelines for the end of their states’ school mask mandates, Dr. Carlos del Rio, the executive associate dean of the Emory University School of Medicine, said it’s the right thing to do for school districts in highly vaccinated communities.

“In a highly vaccinated community, as the cases are decreasing right now with Omicron, in a couple of weeks, maybe removing masks is actually the right thing to do. It allows us the opportunity to actually peel off one of those restrictions that has been so controversial,” del Rio told CNN’s Bianna Golodryga on Monday. He added that there are other mitigation measures that schools can adopt, such as improving air ventilation in classrooms.

Del Rio said communities should continue to monitor Covid-19 cases as well as track hospitalizations and test positivity rates.

He thinks there are two possible metrics for lifting mask mandates, he told CNN in an email Monday: hospitalization rates and capacity levels in intensive care units.

Get CNN Health's weekly newsletter Sign up here to get The Results Are In with Dr. Sanjay Gupta every Tuesday from the CNN Health team.

“If hospitalizations are clearly coming down and positivity rates are coming down in the community, it is the right thing to do,” del Rio told Golodryga of lifting school mask mandates.

On the other hand, many states that continue to see high Covid-19 case counts and low vaccination rates have not changed their school mask policies. For instance, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said Monday that the state will continue to recommend face masks in schools, citing low vaccinations rates in children.

When asked what it will take for him to lift that recommendation, Beshear said he will look at the positivity rate and vaccination rate in people 18 and under.

Everything you need to know about Biden's student loan forgiveness ...

Washington CNN —

President Joe Biden’s federal student loan forgiveness program, which promises to deliver up to $20,000 of debt relief for millions of borrowers, is on hold as legal challenges work their way through the courts.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on February 28 in two cases concerning the forgiveness program, with a decision expected by late June or early July.

About 26 million people had already applied by the time a federal district court judge struck down the program on November 10, 2022 – prompting the government to stop taking applications. No debt has been canceled thus far.

The administration officially launched the application on October 17, 2022, following a brief “beta period” during which its team assessed whether tweaks were needed.

If the courts ultimately allow the program to move forward, not every student loan borrower is eligible for the debt relief. First, only federally held student loans qualify. Private student loans are excluded.

Second, high-income borrowers are generally excluded from receiving debt forgiveness. Individual borrowers who make less than $125,000 a year and married couples or heads of households who make less than $250,000 annually could see up to $10,000 of their federal student loan debt forgiven.

If a qualifying borrower also received a federal Pell grant while enrolled in college, the individual is eligible for up to $20,000 of debt forgiveness. Pell grants are awarded to millions of low-income students each year, based on factors including their family’s size and income and the cost charged by their college. These borrowers are also more likely to struggle to repay their student debt and end up in default.

Here’s what else borrowers need to know about the proposed student loan forgiveness plan:

What are the legal challenges to Biden’s forgiveness plan?

The Biden administration faced several lawsuits over the student loan forgiveness program, two of which have made it to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs argue that the Department of Education is overstepping its authority.

One of the lawsuits was brought by six Republican-led states, headed by Nebraska, that argue that the student loan forgiveness program violates the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that governs the process by which federal agencies issue regulations.

A lower court judge dismissed this lawsuit on October 20, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have the legal standing to bring the challenge. In November, the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and blocked the program.

The other challenge that the Supreme Court will hear was brought by two individual borrowers – Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor – who are not qualified for full debt relief forgiveness and who say they were denied an opportunity to comment on the secretary of education’s decision to provided targeted student loan debt relief to some.

The lawsuit was filed with the backing of a conservative group called the Job Creators Network Foundation. A federal judge in Texas ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, striking down the program on November 10.

Lawyers for the government say that Congress gave the secretary of education “expansive authority to alleviate the hardship that federal student loan recipients may suffer as a result of national emergencies,” like the Covid-19 pandemic, according to a memo from the Department of Justice.

When will I receive my debt relief?

It’s unclear when, or if, borrowers will see debt relief under Biden’s program.

Administration officials expected to be able to grant relief before January, when payments were set resume after the pandemic-related pause expired. But now debt cancellation won’t occur until at least June when the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling.

On November 22, 2022, the Biden administration extended the pandemic-related pause on payments until 60 days after the litigation is resolved. If the program has not been implemented and the litigation has not been resolved by June 30, payments will resume 60 days after that.

The White House has said that it has already approved 16 million applications for debt relief. The Department of Education will hold on to that information so it can quickly process those borrowers’ relief if the government prevails in court.

If and when the program moves forward, an estimated 8 million borrowers may receive debt relief automatically because the Department of Education already has their income on file.

If the government restarts taking applications, borrowers can apply online here: https://studentaid.gov/debt-relief/application.

Applicants can expect to receive an email confirmation once their application is successfully submitted. Then, borrowers will be notified by their loan servicer when the debt cancellation has been applied to their account.

Borrowers were expected to have until December 31, 2023, to submit an application.

What kind of federal loans are eligible?

There are a variety of federal student loans and not all are eligible for relief if the program is allowed to proceed. Federal Direct Loans, including subsidized loans, unsubsidized loans, parent PLUS loans and graduate PLUS loans, are eligible.

But federal student loans that are guaranteed by the government but held by private lenders are not eligible unless the borrower applied to consolidate those loans into a Direct Loan by September 29, 2022.

The Department of Education initially said these privately held loans, many of which were made under the former Federal Family Education Loan program and Federal Perkins Loan program, would be eligible for the one-time forgiveness action – but reversed course last September when six Republican-led states sued the Biden administration, arguing that forgiving the privately held loans would financially hurt states and student loan servicers.

Defaulted Federal Family Education Loans and defaulted Perkins Loans would be eligible for the debt relief even if they are privately held.

What year is the income threshold based on?

If Biden’s program is allowed to move forward, eligibility is based on a borrower’s adjusted gross income for either tax year 2020 or 2021. Adjusted gross income can be lower than your total wages because it considers tax deductions and adjustments, like contributions made to a 401(k) retirement plan.

A taxpayer’s adjusted gross income can be found on line 11 of IRS Form 1040.

How will the government know what my income was?

The Department of Education says it already has income information for nearly 8 million borrowers, likely because of financial aid forms or previously submitted income-driven repayment plan applications. If the program is allowed to move forward, those borrowers will automatically receive the debt relief if they meet the income requirement, unless they choose to opt out. The department has said it will email borrowers who will be considered for debt relief but don’t need to apply.

Millions of other borrowers will need to apply for student loan forgiveness if the Department of Education doesn’t have their income information on file. When they submit the application, borrowers are required to self-attest that their income is under the eligibility threshold. They are required to certify that the information provided is accurate upon penalty of perjury.

The Biden administration has said that applicants who are “more likely to exceed the income cutoff” will be required to submit additional information, like a tax transcript. Officials expect that just 5% of borrowers with eligible federal student loans would not qualify due to the income threshold.

Will I have to pay taxes on the amount of debt canceled?

Borrowers will not have to pay federal income tax on the student loan debt forgiven, thanks to a provision in the American Rescue Plan Act that Congress passed in 2021.

But it’s possible that some borrowers may have to pay state income tax on the amount of debt forgiven. There are a handful of states that may tax discharged debt if state legislative or administrative changes are not made beforehand, according to the Tax Policy Center. The tax liability could be hundreds of dollars, depending on the state.

I’m a current student. Am I eligible for forgiveness?

Yes, some current students would be eligible under Biden’s plan if it’s allowed to take effect. Eligibility for borrowers who filed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, known as the FAFSA, as an independent will be based on the individual’s own household income.

Eligibility for borrowers who are enrolled as dependent students, generally those under the age of 24, will be based on parental income for either 2020 or 2021.

I have student debt from graduate school. Am I eligible for forgiveness?

Yes, if your income meets the eligibility threshold and the program is allowed to be implemented.

I’m a parent and took out a Parent PLUS loan. Am I eligible?

Yes, you could be eligible if your income meets the threshold. A parent borrower with federal Parent PLUS loans for multiple children is still only eligible for up to $20,000 of loan forgiveness.

But a parent is only eligible for up to $20,000 in debt relief if he or she received a Pell grant for his or her own education. If only the child received a Pell grant, the parent is eligible for up to $10,000 in forgiveness.

How do I know if I ever received a Pell grant?

Most borrowers can log in to Studentaid.gov to see if they received a Pell grant while enrolled in college. Information about Pell grants received is displayed on the account dashboard and on the My Aid page. This is also where borrowers can find out how much they owe and what kind of loans they have.

Borrowers who received a Pell grant before 1994 won’t see their Pell grant information online, but they are still eligible for the $20,000 in student loan forgiveness.

As long as borrowers received at least one Pell grant, they are eligible.

The Biden administration has said that eligible borrowers who have received Pell grants will automatically receive the additional debt relief.

Am I eligible for forgiveness if my loans are in default?

Yes, defaulted federal student loans would be eligible for debt relief under Biden’s program.

For borrowers who have a remaining balance on their defaulted student loans after the cancellation is applied, there will be an opportunity to get out of default once payments resume later this year as part of what the Department of Education is calling its “Fresh Start” initiative.

How will my payments change going forward?

Borrowers who have debt remaining after either $10,000 or $20,000 is wiped away could see their monthly payment amounts recalculated if they are enrolled in a standard repayment plan. Under a standard repayment plan, borrowers pay a fixed amount that ensures loans are paid off within 10 years.

Borrowers who are already enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan are not likely to see their monthly payment amounts change due to the forgiveness, because their payments are based on household income and family size.

Borrowers have not been required to make payments on their federal student loans since March 2020 because of the government’s pandemic-related pause.

What about Biden’s new income-driven repayment plan?

Along with Biden’s August announcement about canceling some federal student loan debt, he also said he would create a new plan that would make repayment more manageable for borrowers.

There are currently several repayment plans available for federal student loan borrowers that lower monthly payments by capping them at a portion of their income.

The new income-driven repayment plan proposal will cap payments at 5% of a borrower’s discretionary income, down from 10% that is offered in most current plans, as well as reduce the amount of income that is considered discretionary. It would also forgive remaining balances after 10 years of repayment, instead of 20 years.

Biden is also proposing that the new plan cover the borrower’s unpaid monthly interest. This could be very helpful for people whose monthly payments are so low that they don’t cover their monthly interest charge and end up seeing their balances explode, growing larger than what was originally borrowed.

The new plan is currently going through a formal rulemaking process, and the Department of Education has said it expects provisions of the new plan to take effect later this year.

Can I get a refund for what I paid during the pandemic pause?

Yes. Borrowers have not been required to make payments on their federal student loans since March 13, 2020, because of the pandemic-related pause. But if borrowers did make payments, they are allowed to contact their loan servicer to request a refund.

This story has been updated with additional information.

Mar-a-Lago search: Justice Department says documents were likely ...

CNN —

US government documents were “likely concealed and removed” from a storage room at Mar-a-Lago as part of an effort to “obstruct” the FBI’s investigation into former President Donald Trump’s potential mishandling of classified materials, the Justice Department said in a blockbuster court filing Tuesday night.

More than 320 classified documents have now been recovered from Mar-a-Lago, the Justice Department said, including more than 100 in the FBI search earlier this month.

Tuesday’s filing represents the Justice Department’s strongest case to date that Trump concealed classified material he was keeping at Mar-a-Lago in an attempt to obstruct the FBI’s investigation into the potential mishandling of classified material.

The Justice Department revealed the startling new details as part of its move to oppose Trump’s effort to intervene in the federal investigation that led to the search of his Florida resort and his desire for a “special master” to be appointed to the case.

Trump has pushed an “incomplete and inaccurate narrative” in his recent court filings about the Mar-a-Lago search, the Justice Department said.

“The government provides below a detailed recitation of the relevant facts, many of which are provided to correct the incomplete and inaccurate narrative set forth in Plaintiff’s filings,” prosecutors wrote.

It presents a strong rebuttal of the criticisms of the FBI’s unprecedented search of a former President’s residence, laying out clearly how Trump had failed to return dozens of classified documents even after his lawyer attested that he had provided all classified material in his possession.

Video Ad Feedback Honig says DOJ filing shows FBI had no choice but to search Mar-a-Lago 02:29 - Source: CNN

A picture on the final page of the filing showing classified documents arrayed on the floor of Trump’s office – full of highly classified markings like “HCS,” meaning human intelligence sources – hammered home how sensitive the material Trump had taken was.

At issue is Trump’s compliance with a grand jury subpoena, issued in May, demanding that he turn over classified documents from Mar-a-Lago. Prosecutors said Tuesday that some documents were likely removed from a storage room before Trump’s lawyers examined the area, while they were trying to comply with the subpoena. The timeline is essential, because Trump’s lawyers later told investigators that they searched the storage area and that all classified documents were accounted for.

“The government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation,” prosecutors wrote. “This included evidence indicating that boxes formerly in the Storage Room were not returned prior to counsel’s review.”

The allegations came after the DOJ’s filing went into specific detail about actions from Trump’s team that the department implies were obstructive to its probe.

In the filing opposing Trump’s request, DOJ argues that the former president lacks standing over presidential records “because those records do not belong to him,” as presidential records are considered property of the government.

The Presidential Records Act makes clear that “[t]he United States” has “complete ownership, possession, and control of them,” the DOJ filing states.

Trump has argued that his constitutional rights have been violated and that some of the documents seized earlier this month contain material covered by privilege – particularly executive privilege.

The Justice Department was ordered to submit the filing by Judge Aileen Cannon, who has already indicated she is inclined to grant Trump’s request for third party oversight of documents the FBI seized Mar-a-Lago.

The role of a special master is to filter out any materials seized in a search that don’t belong in the hands of investigators because of a privilege. Special masters have been used in high-profile cases before, but usually in cases where the FBI has searched an attorney’s office or home and there is a need to filter out materials concerning attorney-client privilege. Trump’s request has centered on the need to protect documents concerning executive privilege from his conduct as president.

Signals from Cannon, a Trump appointee, that she is leaning toward appointing a special master in the Mar-a-Lago search have raised eyebrows among legal observers. For one, Trump filed his request for the appointment two weeks after the search of his Florida home, risking the potential that the Justice Department is already done with the bulk of its review. Secondly, Trump and the judge alike have pointed to civil rules concerning special master appointments, when the search warrant is arising in a criminal context.

Since the August 8 search, a number of previously secret court filings the DOJ submitted to obtain the warrant have been made partially public in part because of a bid for transparency filed in court by several media organizations, including CNN.

Those redacted documents have revealed that the search was connected to a DOJ investigation into alleged violations of the Espionage Act, criminal mishandling of government documents and obstruction of justice. According to an FBI affidavit that was released last week, an FBI review of 15 boxes retrieved by the National Archives from Mar-a-Lago in January found 184 documents bearing classification markings – some of them identified as particularly sensitive government documents.

Trump, in seeking the special master, has stressed in court filings the lack of criminal enforcement in the Presidential Records Act, a Watergate-era law laying out the process for preserving presidential records. He did not mention the three criminal statutes the DOJ cited in its warrant documents. Trump’s lawyers have also emphasized his supposedly unfettered ability when he was president to declassify documents, though the statutes in question don’t require that the materials be classified.

Wednesday morning, Trump posted on his social media platform on Truth Social for the first time since the Justice Department filing and once again claimed to have declassified documents that were found at his Mar-a-Lago residence.

In one of his most recent posts, Trump appeared to comment on the photo of top-secret documents laid out on the floor, saying, “Terrible the way the FBI… threw documents haphazardly all over the floor,” and, “Lucky I Declassified!”

In other posts, he attacked the FBI and DOJ generally and said, “This is the time, after many years of lawbreaking & unfairness, to clean things up. All things for a reason. DRAIN THE SWAMP!!!” He repeated his false claims of a stolen election and said, “Our Country is going to hell!” He also claimed crowds are “already forming” for his rally on Saturday.

Trump’s attorney limited what DOJ could look at during June visit

A top Justice Department official contends that federal investigators were limited in what they could look through when visiting the resort in June – contrary to the Trump team’s narrative of total cooperation.

Trump’s lawyer requested that the FBI come to the resort to pick up the documents after the Trump team had received a grand jury subpoena in May seeking any materials marked classified, according to the Justice Department.

DOJ’s account also undermined claims by Trump and his allies that the former President had declassified the materials in question.

“When producing the documents, neither counsel nor the custodian asserted that the former President had declassified the documents or asserted any claim of executive privilege,” the filing said. “Instead, counsel handled them in a manner that suggested counsel believed that the documents were classified: the production included a single Redweld envelope, double-wrapped in tape, containing the document.”

In the DOJ’s account, Trump’s lawyer said that all the remaining documents from Trump’s White House were being kept in the storage at Mar-a-Lago. “Counsel further represented that there were no other records stored in any private office space or other location at the Premises and that all available boxes were searched,” the filing said.

Prosecutors confirmed Trump’s assertion that the visiting DOJ and FBI officials were then allowed to visit the storage area.

“Critically, however, the former President’s counsel explicitly prohibited government personnel from opening or looking inside any of the boxes that remained in the storage room, giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained,” the DOJ said.

DOJ reveals grand jury proceedings related to Mar-a-Lago search happening in DC

The Justice Department confirmed that grand jury subpoenas had been issued in its probe, and that the grand jury that issued them had been empaneled in DC. The department included a copy of a May 11 subpoena for government records at Mar-a-Lago marked as classified that indicated the existence of the DC federal grand jury. Before making the subpoena public, the department on Monday got permission to do so from Chief Judge Beryl Howell in the DC District Court, according to a footnote in its brief.

The reference to Howell suggests that in addition to Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart and Cannon in Florida, a third judge is now involved in the DOJ’s probe.

This story has been updated with additional details.

Jeremy Herb Tierney Sneed Marshall Cohen Evan Perez Sara Murray

Biden's student loan forgiveness application is coming soon. Here's ...

Washington CNN —

The application for President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan is expected to go live as soon as this week.

Announced in late August, the plan will deliver federal student loan forgiveness to millions of low- and middle-income borrowers.

Individuals who earned less than $125,000 in either 2020 or 2021 and married couples or heads of households who made less than $250,000 annually in those years will see up to $10,000 of their federal student loan debt forgiven.

If a qualifying borrower also received a federal Pell grant while enrolled in college, the individual is eligible for up to $20,000 of debt forgiveness.

In addition to federal Direct Loans used to pay for an undergraduate degree, federal PLUS loans borrowed by graduate students and parents may also be eligible if the borrower meets the income requirements.

Facing mounting legal challenges to the student loan forgiveness policy, the Biden administration announced some last-minute changes to the program last week. Borrowers are still awaiting final details on the policy.

The Department of Education regularly updates the Federal Student Aid website with information on the forgiveness program.

Here’s what we know so far:

How to apply

The application has not been released yet but the Biden administration has said it will come out sometime in October.

The online application will be short, according to the Department of Education. Borrowers won’t need to upload any supporting documents or use their Federal Student Aid ID to submit the application.

“Once you submit your application, we’ll review it, determine your eligibility for debt relief and work with your loan servicer(s) to process your relief. We’ll contact you if we need any additional information from you,” the department said an email to borrowers last week.

Borrowers will have more than a year to apply. The deadline will be December 2023.

To be notified when the process has officially opened, sign up at the Department of Education subscription page.

When will forgiveness start?

About 8 million people are expected to receive student loan forgiveness automatically because the Department of Education already knows what their income is, likely due to previously submitted financial aid forms or income-driven repayment plan applications.

It’s unclear when exactly debts will be discharged. But due to ongoing lawsuits, the government has agreed in court to hold off canceling any federal student loan debt before October 17.

Last-minute eligibility change

The Biden administration scaled back eligibility for the program last week, as it faces mounting legal challenges to the policy.

The program will now exclude borrowers whose federal student loans are guaranteed by the government but held by private lenders. The administration has said the change could affect about 700,000 people.

The Department of Education initially said these loans, many of which were made under the former Federal Family Education Loan program and Federal Perkins Loan program, would be eligible for the one-time forgiveness action as long as the borrower consolidated his or her debt into the federal Direct Loan program.

But the agency has reversed course after six Republican-led states sued the Biden administration, arguing that forgiving the privately held loans would financially hurt states and student loan servicers.

Now, privately held federal student loans must have been consolidated before September 29 in order to be eligible for the debt relief.

Borrowers can opt out of the program

The White House clarified last week that borrowers will be able to opt out if they don’t want to receive the debt forgiveness.

The Biden administration’s announcement came hours after a borrower sued, arguing that he would be forced to pay state taxes on the amount canceled – an expense he would otherwise avoid.

There are a handful of states that may tax the debt discharged under Biden’s plan if state legislative or administrative changes are not made beforehand, according to the Tax Foundation.

Ongoing legal challenges

There are currently at least three significant lawsuits aiming to block the Biden administration from implementing its student loan forgiveness plan.

Republican states are leading the charge. In addition to the lawsuit filed by six Republican-led states that say they could be hurt financially by the forgiveness plan, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich also filed a lawsuit last week.

Brnovich, a Republican, argues that the policy could reduce Arizona’s tax revenue because the state code doesn’t consider the loan forgiveness as taxable income, according to the lawsuit. The complaint also argues that the forgiveness policy will hurt the attorney general office’s ability to recruit employees. Currently its employees may be eligible for the federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, but some potential job candidates may not view that as a benefit if their student loan debt is already canceled, the lawsuit argues.

A federal judge has already denied the request in the third lawsuit – from a borrower who sued arguing that they would incur a bigger state tax bill due to the loan forgiveness. The plaintiff, a public interest lawyer at the Pacific Legal Foundation, has until October 10 to file a revamped lawsuit.

How much will the program cost?

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a report released last week that the student loan cancellation could come at a price of $400 billion but noted that those estimates are still “highly uncertain.”

The Biden administration argues that the CBO’s cost estimate should be viewed over a 30-year time period and came out with its own analysis two days later. It said the program will cost an average of $30 billion per year over the next decade and $379 billion over the course of the program.

Beware of scams

The Department of Education is warning borrowers of scams related to the student loan forgiveness program that ask for payment in return for help getting debt relief.

“Make sure you work only with the US Department of Education and our loan servicers, and never reveal your personal information or account password to anyone,” it said in an email to borrowers.