reported speech orders pdf

Reported speech - 1

Reported speech - 2

Reported speech - 3

Worksheets - handouts

Reported speech

Worksheets - pdf exercises.

• Reported statements - worksheet
• Worksheet - reported questions
• Reported yes/no questions
• Worksheet - reported speech
• Reported speech - exercises pdf
• Indirect speech - exercises
• Reported speech - exercises
• Mixed reported speech 1
• Mixed reported speech 2
• Reported speech 1 
• Reported speech 2  
• Reported speech 3 
• Reported speech 4
• Reported speech 5
• Reported wh- questions
• Reported speech - worksheet 
• Reported commands
• Reported questions
• Reported speech 1
• Reported speech 2
• Reported requests and orders
• Reported speech exercise
• Reported questions - worksheet
• Indirect speech - worksheet
• Worksheets pdf - print
• Grammar worksheets - handouts

Grammar - lessons

• Reported speech - grammar notes
• How to use reported speech - lesson
• Tense changes - grammar

Reported Speech Exercises

Perfect english grammar.

Here's a list of all the reported speech exercises on this site:

( Click here to read the explanations about reported speech )

Reported Statements:

• Present Simple Reported Statement Exercise (quite easy) (in PDF here)
• Present Continuous Reported Statement Exercise (quite easy) (in PDF here)
• Past Simple Reported Statement Exercise (quite easy) (in PDF here)
• Present Perfect Reported Statement Exercise (quite easy) (in PDF here)
• Future Simple Reported Statement Exercise (quite easy) (in PDF here)
• Mixed Tense Reported Statement Exercise (intermediate) (in PDF here)
• 'Say' and 'Tell' (quite easy) (in PDF here)

Reported Questions:

• Present Simple Reported Yes/No Question Exercise (intermediate) (in PDF here)
• Present Simple Reported Wh Question Exercise (intermediate) (in PDF here)
• Mixed Tense Reported Question Exercise (intermediate) (in PDF here)

Reported Orders and Requests:

• Reported Requests and Orders Exercise (intermediate) (in PDF here)
• Reported Speech Mixed Exercise 1 (difficult) (in PDF here)
• Reported Speech Mixed Exercise 2 (difficult) (in PDF here)

Hello! I'm Seonaid! I'm here to help you understand grammar and speak correct, fluent English.

Read more about our learning method

Reported speech commands and requests

• English grammar PDF
• PDF worksheets
• Mixed PDF tests
• Present tenses
• Past tenses
• Future tenses
• Present perfect
• Past perfect
• Future perfect
• Irregular verbs
• Modal verbs
• If-conditional
• Passive voice

Reported speech

• Time clauses
• Relative clauses
• Indirect questions
• Question tags
• Imperative sentence
• Gerund and infinitive
• Direct | indirect object

Make reported commands and requests.

"Sit down, please," she asked me. She asked me to sit down.

Check test Answer key Clear test

Related pages:

Exercises, PDF worksheets and grammar rules.

Reported commands, requests and questions

Reported speech worksheets PDF

Reported commands and requests

We use verbs such as advise, ask, beg, forbid, order, persuade, recommend, tell, urge, warn etc. to introduce commands and requests in the reported speech.

In the direct speech we usually do not mention the person in the imperative. In the reported speech the person addressed must be mentioned.

"Stand up," the teacher said. - The teacher told the children to stand up. "Please, prepare for the exam," she said. - She urged me to prepare for the exam. "Take off your shoes," I said. - I advised him to take off his shoes. "Lie down on the floor," ordered the policeman. - The policeman ordered the robber to lie down on the floor.

Negative commands and requests

Negative commands and requests are made by verb + object + not + infinitive.

"Don't be late again," said Jane. - Jane urged me not be late again. "Don't hesitate," our teacher persuaded us. - Our teacher persuaded us not to hesitate. "Don't smoke," the doctor warned my father. - The doctor warned my father not to smoke.

Reported Speech: Rules, Examples, Exceptions

👉 Quiz 1 / Quiz 2

Advanced Grammar Course

What is reported speech?

“Reported speech” is when we talk about what somebody else said – for example:

• Direct Speech: “I’ve been to London three times.”
• Reported Speech: She said she’d been to London three times.

There are a lot of tricky little details to remember, but don’t worry, I’ll explain them and we’ll see lots of examples. The lesson will have three parts – we’ll start by looking at statements in reported speech, and then we’ll learn about some exceptions to the rules, and finally we’ll cover reported questions, requests, and commands.

So much of English grammar – like this topic, reported speech – can be confusing, hard to understand, and even harder to use correctly. I can help you learn grammar easily and use it confidently inside my Advanced English Grammar Course.

In this course, I will make even the most difficult parts of English grammar clear to you – and there are lots of opportunities for you to practice!

Backshift of Verb Tenses in Reported Speech

When we use reported speech, we often change the verb tense backwards in time. This can be called “backshift.”

Here are some examples in different verb tenses:

Reported Speech (Part 1) Quiz

Exceptions to backshift in reported speech.

Now that you know some of the reported speech rules about backshift, let’s learn some exceptions.

There are two situations in which we do NOT need to change the verb tense.

No backshift needed when the situation is still true

For example, if someone says “I have three children” (direct speech) then we would say “He said he has three children” because the situation continues to be true.

If I tell you “I live in the United States” (direct speech) then you could tell someone else “She said she lives in the United States” (that’s reported speech) because it is still true.

When the situation is still true, then we don’t need to backshift the verb.

He said he HAS three children

But when the situation is NOT still true, then we DO need to backshift the verb.

Imagine your friend says, “I have a headache.”

• If you immediately go and talk to another friend, you could say, “She said she has a headache,” because the situation is still true
• If you’re talking about that conversation a month after it happened, then you would say, “She said she had a headache,” because it’s no longer true.

No backshift needed when the situation is still in the future

We also don’t need to backshift to the verb when somebody said something about the future, and the event is still in the future.

Here’s an example:

• On Monday, my friend said, “I ‘ll call you on Friday .”
• “She said she ‘ll call me on Friday”, because Friday is still in the future from now.
• It is also possible to say, “She said she ‘d (she would) call me on Friday.”
• Both of them are correct, so the backshift in this case is optional.

Let’s look at a different situation:

• On Monday, my friend said, “I ‘ll call you on Tuesday .”
• “She said she ‘d  call me on Tuesday.” I must backshift because the event is NOT still in the future.

Review: Reported Speech, Backshift, & Exceptions

Quick review:

• Normally in reported speech we backshift the verb, we put it in a verb tense that’s a little bit further in the past.
• when the situation is still true
• when the situation is still in the future

Reported Requests, Orders, and Questions

Those were the rules for reported statements, just regular sentences.

What about reported speech for questions, requests, and orders?

For reported requests, we use “asked (someone) to do something”:

• “Please make a copy of this report.” (direct speech)
• She asked me to make a copy of the report. (reported speech)

For reported orders, we use “told (someone) to do something:”

• “Go to the bank.” (direct speech)
• “He told me to go to the bank.” (reported speech)

The main verb stays in the infinitive with “to”:

• She asked me to make a copy of the report. She asked me  make  a copy of the report.
• He told me to go to the bank. He told me  go  to the bank.

For yes/no questions, we use “asked if” and “wanted to know if” in reported speech.

• “Are you coming to the party?” (direct)
• He asked if I was coming to the party. (reported)
• “Did you turn off the TV?” (direct)
• She wanted to know if I had turned off the TV.” (reported)

The main verb changes and back shifts according to the rules and exceptions we learned earlier.

Notice that we don’t use do/does/did in the reported question:

• She wanted to know did I turn off the TV.
• She wanted to know if I had turned off the TV.

For other questions that are not yes/no questions, we use asked/wanted to know (without “if”):

• “When was the company founded?” (direct)
• She asked when the company was founded.” (reported)
• “What kind of car do you drive?” (direct)
• He wanted to know what kind of car I drive. (reported)

Again, notice that we don’t use do/does/did in reported questions:

• “Where does he work?”
• She wanted to know  where does he work.
• She wanted to know where he works.

Also, in questions with the verb “to be,” the word order changes in the reported question:

• “Where were you born?” ([to be] + subject)
• He asked where I was born. (subject + [to be])
• He asked where was I born.

Reported Speech (Part 2) Quiz

Learn more about reported speech:

• Reported speech: Perfect English Grammar
• Reported speech: BJYU’s

If you want to take your English grammar to the next level, then my Advanced English Grammar Course is for you! It will help you master the details of the English language, with clear explanations of essential grammar topics, and lots of practice. I hope to see you inside!

I’ve got one last little exercise for you, and that is to write sentences using reported speech. Think about a conversation you’ve had in the past, and write about it – let’s see you put this into practice right away.

Master the details of English grammar:

More Espresso English Lessons:

About the author.

Shayna Oliveira

Shayna Oliveira is the founder of Espresso English, where you can improve your English fast - even if you don’t have much time to study. Millions of students are learning English from her clear, friendly, and practical lessons! Shayna is a CELTA-certified teacher with 10+ years of experience helping English learners become more fluent in her English courses.

English EFL

Reported speech

Reporting orders and requests

Reporting orders and requests.

When we want to report an order or request, we can use a verb like 'tell' with a to-clause:  He told me to go away.  The pattern is  verb + indirect object + to-clause . The indirect object is the person spoken to. Other verbs used in reporting orders and requests in this way are:  command, order, warn, ask, advise, invite, beg, teach, & forbid.

REQUESTS FOR OBJECTS

Requests for objects are reported using the pattern "asked for" + object.

SUGGESTIONS

Suggestions are most often reported using the verbs suggest, insist, recommend, demand, request, and propose followed by a that clause. 'That' and 'should' are optional in these clauses, as shown in the first two examples below. Note that suggest, recommend, and propose may also be followed by a gerund in order to eliminate the indirect object (the receiver of the suggestion) and thus make the suggestion more polite. This usage of the gerund is illustrated in the fourth and fifth examples below.

Course Curriculum

• Direct and indirect speech 15 mins
• Tense changes in reported speech 20 mins
• Changing time and place in reported speech 20 mins
• Reported questions 20 mins
• Reporting verbs 20 mins
• Reporting orders and requests 15 mins
• Reporting hopes, intentions and promises 20 mins

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

FACT SHEET: President   Biden Announces New Actions to Secure the   Border

New actions will bar migrants who cross our Southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum Biden taking action as Congressional Republicans put partisan politics ahead of national security, twice voting against toughest reforms in decades

Since his first day in office, President Biden has called on Congress to secure our border and address our broken immigration system. Over the past three years, while Congress has failed to act, the President has acted to secure our border. His Administration has deployed the most agents and officers ever to address the situation at the Southern border, seized record levels of illicit fentanyl at our ports of entry, and brought together world leaders on a framework to deal with changing migration patterns that are impacting the entire Western Hemisphere.  Earlier this year, the President and his team reached a historic bipartisan agreement with Senate Democrats and Republicans to deliver the most consequential reforms of America’s immigration laws in decades. This agreement would have added critical border and immigration personnel, invested in technology to catch illegal fentanyl, delivered sweeping reforms to the asylum system, and provided emergency authority for the President to shut down the border when the system is overwhelmed. But Republicans in Congress chose to put partisan politics ahead of our national security, twice voting against the toughest and fairest set of reforms in decades. President Biden believes we must secure our border. That is why today, he announced executive actions to bar migrants who cross our Southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum. These actions will be in effect when high levels of encounters at the Southern Border exceed our ability to deliver timely consequences, as is the case today. They will make it easier for immigration officers to remove those without a lawful basis to remain and reduce the burden on our Border Patrol agents. But we must be clear: this cannot achieve the same results as Congressional action, and it does not provide the critical personnel and funding needed to further secure our Southern border. Congress still must act. The Biden-Harris Administration’s executive actions will:   Bar Migrants Who Cross the Southern Border Unlawfully From Receiving Asylum

• President Biden issued a proclamation under Immigration and Nationality Act sections 212(f) and 215(a) suspending entry of noncitizens who cross the Southern border into the United States unlawfully. This proclamation is accompanied by an interim final rule from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security that restricts asylum for those noncitizens.
• These actions will be in effect when the Southern border is overwhelmed, and they will make it easier for immigration officers to quickly remove individuals who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States.
• These actions are not permanent. They will be discontinued when the number of migrants who cross the border between ports of entry is low enough for America’s system to safely and effectively manage border operations. These actions also include similar humanitarian exceptions to those included in the bipartisan border agreement announced in the Senate, including those for unaccompanied children and victims of trafficking.

Recent Actions to secure our border and address our broken immigration system: Strengthening the Asylum Screening Process

• The Department of Homeland Security published a proposed rule to ensure that migrants who pose a public safety or national security risk are removed as quickly in the process as possible rather than remaining in prolonged, costly detention prior to removal. This proposed rule will enhance security and deliver more timely consequences for those who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States.

Announced new actions to more quickly resolve immigration cases

• The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security launched a Recent Arrivals docket to more quickly resolve a portion of immigration cases for migrants who attempt to cross between ports of entry at the Southern border in violation of our immigration laws.
• Through this process, the Department of Justice will be able to hear these cases more quickly and the Department of Homeland Security will be able to more quickly remove individuals who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States and grant protection to those with valid claims.
• The bipartisan border agreement would have created and supported an even more efficient framework for issuing final decisions to all asylum seekers. This new process to reform our overwhelmed immigration system can only be created and funded by Congress.

Revoked visas of CEOs and government officials who profit from migrants coming to the U.S. unlawfully

• The Department of State imposed visa restrictions on executives of several Colombian transportation companies who profit from smuggling migrants by sea. This action cracks down on companies that help facilitate unlawful entry into the United States, and sends a clear message that no one should profit from the exploitation of vulnerable migrants.
• The State Department also imposed visa restrictions on over 250 members of the Nicaraguan government, non-governmental actors, and their immediate family members for their roles in supporting the Ortega-Murillo regime, which is selling transit visas to migrants from within and beyond the Western Hemisphere who ultimately make their way to the Southern border.
• Previously, the State Department revoked visas of executives of charter airlines for similar actions.

Expanded Efforts to Dismantle Human Smuggling and Support Immigration Prosecutions

• The Departments of State and Justice launched an “Anti-Smuggling Rewards” initiative designed to dismantle the leadership of human smuggling organizations that bring migrants through Central America and across the Southern U.S. border. The initiative will offer financial rewards for information leading to the identification, location, arrest, or conviction of those most responsible for significant human smuggling activities in the region.
• The Department of Justice will seek new and increased penalties against human smugglers to properly account for the severity of their criminal conduct and the human misery that it causes.
• The Department of Justice is also partnering with the Department of Homeland Security to direct additional prosecutors and support staff to increase immigration-related prosecutions in crucial border U.S. Attorney’s Offices. Efforts include deploying additional DHS Special Assistant United States Attorneys to different U.S. Attorneys’ offices, assigning support staff to critical U.S. Attorneys’ offices, including DOJ Attorneys to serve details in U.S. Attorneys’ Offices in several border districts, and partnering with federal agencies to identify additional resources to target these crimes.

Enhancing Immigration Enforcement

• The Department of Homeland Security has surged agents to the Southern border and is referring a record number of people into expedited removal.
• The Department of Homeland Security is operating more repatriation flights per week than ever before. Over the past year, DHS has removed or returned more than 750,000 people, more than in every fiscal year since 2010.
• Working closely with partners throughout the region, the Biden-Harris Administration is identifying and collaborating on enforcement efforts designed to stop irregular migration before migrants reach our Southern border, expand investment and integration opportunities in the region to support those who may otherwise seek to migrate, and increase lawful pathways for migrants as an alternative to irregular migration.

Seizing Fentanyl at our Border

• Border officials have seized more fentanyl at ports of entry in the last two years than the past five years combined, and the President has added 40 drug detection machines across points of entry to disrupt the fentanyl smuggling into the Homeland. The bipartisan border agreement would fund the installation of 100 additional cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect fentanyl at our Southern border ports of entry.
• In close partnership with the Government of Mexico, the Department of Justice has extradited Nestor Isidro Perez Salaz, known as “El Nini,” from Mexico to the United States to face prosecution for his role in illicit fentanyl trafficking and human rights abuses. This is one of many examples of joint efforts with Mexico to tackle the fentanyl and synthetic drug epidemic that is killing so many people in our countries and globally, and to hold the drug trafficking organizations to account.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

Canada’s Extremist Attack on Free Speech

A bill making its way through the Canadian Parliament would impose draconian criminal penalties on hate speech and curtail people’s liberty in order to stop crimes they haven’t yet committed.

Listen to this article

Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.

In 1984 , George Orwell coined the term thoughtcrime . In the short story “The Minority Report,” the science-fiction author Philip K. Dick gave us the concept of “precrime,” describing a society where would-be criminals were arrested before they could act. Now Canada is combining the concepts in a work of dystopian nonfiction: A bill making its way through Parliament would impose draconian criminal penalties on hate speech and curtail people’s liberty in order to stop future crimes they haven’t yet committed.

The Online Harms Act states that any person who advocates for or promotes genocide is “liable to imprisonment for life.” It defines lesser “hate crimes” as including online speech that is “likely to foment detestation or vilification” on the basis of race, religion, gender, or other protected categories. And if someone “fears” they may become a victim of a hate crime, they can go before a judge, who may summon the preemptively accused for a sort of precrime trial. If the judge finds “reasonable grounds” for the fear, the defendant must enter into “a recognizance.”

A recognizance is no mere promise to refrain from committing hate crimes. The judge may put the defendant under house arrest or electronic surveillance and order them to abstain from alcohol and drugs. Refusal to “enter the recognizance” for one year results in 12 months in prison.

This is madness.

The proposed law, the result of efforts that began in 2019 after a terrorist attack in New Zealand, does many other things too. One section concerns the obligations of online platforms to police content. Another bears on the worthy goal of protecting children from viewing pornography and stopping the distribution of child-sexual-abuse material, raising the odds that the bill will pass with too little attention to its worst provisions. (In February, it passed its first reading in the House of Commons. Becoming law would require a second and third reading in that body, where amendments can be proposed; passage in the national Senate; and approval by the governor general .)

Even the bill’s most Orwellian sections have powerful supporters. Justin Trudeau’s government brought the bill before Parliament. Arif Virani , Canada’s minister of justice and attorney general, is championing it. “We need the ability to stop an anticipated hate crime from occurring,” he declared last week. “The Conservatives need to get on board. Now.” According to The New York Times , some version of the bill is likely to pass, because “Trudeau’s Liberal Party has an agreement with an opposition party to support government legislation.”

Ali Breland: The MAGA internet calls for war

Just countries do not punish mere speech with imprisonment, let alone life imprisonment. Just countries do not order people who have not committed and are not even accused of a crime to be confined to their home or tracked with an ankle bracelet. I have reasonable grounds to fear that the Trudeau government is going to trample on the civil rights of Canadians. That is hardly sufficient to secure the house arrest of its officials.

Earlier this year, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association urged substantial amendments to the legislation. “The broad criminal prohibitions on speech in the bill risk stifling public discourse and criminalizing political activism,” it warned. “The bill imposes draconian penalties for certain types of expression, including life imprisonment for a very broad and vaguely defined offence of ‘incitement to genocide,’ and 5 years of jail time for other broadly defined speech acts. This not only chills free speech but also undermines the principles of proportionality and fairness in our legal system.”

But amendments would not go far enough. No one who favors allowing the state to imprison people for mere speech, or severely constraining a person’s liberty in anticipation of alleged hate speech they have yet to utter , is fit for leadership in a liberal democracy. Every elected official who has supported the unamended bill should be ousted at the next opportunity by voters who grasp the fraught, authoritarian folly of this extremist proposal.

Advertisement

Supported by

In Shift, Biden Issues Order Allowing Temporary Border Closure to Migrants

The move shows how drastically immigration politics have shifted in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union said it planned to challenge the order in court.

• Share full article

Biden Issues Order to Curb Immigration at Southern Border

President biden’s executive order prevents migrants from seeking asylum at the u.s.-mexico border when crossings surge..

I’ve come here today to do what the Republicans in Congress refuse to do: Take the necessary steps to secure our border. Today, I’m announcing actions to bar migrants who cross our southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum. Migrants will be restricted from receiving asylum at our southern border unless they seek it after entering through an established lawful process. And those who seek to come to the United States legally, for example, by making an appointment and coming to a port of entry, asylum will still be available to them, still available. To protect America as a land that welcomes immigrants, we must first secure the border and secure it now.

By Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Hamed Aleaziz

Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Hamed Aleaziz have reported on immigration politics and border policy during the Biden and Trump administrations.

President Biden issued an executive order on Tuesday that prevents migrants from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border when crossings surge, a dramatic election-year move to ease pressure on the immigration system and address a major concern among voters.

The measure is the most restrictive border policy instituted by Mr. Biden, or any other modern Democrat, and echoes an effort in 2018 by President Donald J. Trump to cut off migration that was blocked in federal court.

In remarks at the White House, Mr. Biden said he was forced to take executive action because Republicans had blocked bipartisan legislation that had some of the most significant border security restrictions Congress had considered in years.

“We must face a simple truth,” said the president, who was joined by a group of lawmakers and mayors from border communities. “To protect America as a land that welcomes immigrants, we must first secure the border and secure it now.”

Aware that the policy raised uncomfortable comparisons, Mr. Biden took pains to distinguish his actions from those of Mr. Trump. “We continue to work closely with our Mexican neighbors instead of attacking them,” Mr. Biden said. He said he would never refer to immigrants as “ poisoning the blood ” of the country, as Mr. Trump has done.

Still, the move shows how drastically the politics of immigration have shifted to the right in the United States. Polls suggest there is support in both parties for border measures once denounced by Democrats and championed by Mr. Trump as the number of people crossing into the country has reached record levels in recent years.

Mr. Biden’s executive action was set to go into effect at 12:01 a.m. on Wednesday, at which point border officers could return migrants across the border into Mexico or to their home countries within hours or days.

The American Civil Liberties Union said it planned to challenge the executive action in court.

“The administration has left us little choice but to sue,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer at the A.C.L.U, which led the charge against the Trump administration’s attempt to block asylum in 2018 and resulted in the policy being stopped by federal courts. “It was unlawful under Trump and is no less illegal now.”

Assuming it survives legal challenges, the policy kicks in once the seven-day average for daily illegal crossings hits 2,500 — a regular occurrence now. The border would reopen only after the figure drops to 1,500 for seven days in a row and stays that way for two weeks.

That is a significant shift in how asylum has worked for years.

Typically, migrants who cross illegally and claim asylum are released into the United States to wait for court appearances, where they can plead their cases. But a huge backlog means those cases can take years to come up.

The new system is designed to deter those illegal crossings.

There would be limited exceptions to the restrictions announced Tuesday, including for minors who cross the border alone, victims of human trafficking and those who use a Customs and Border Protection app to schedule an appointment with a border officer to request asylum.

But for the most part, the order suspends longtime guarantees that give anyone who steps onto U.S. soil the right to seek a safe haven.

The executive action mirrors the legislation that Republicans blocked in February, saying it was not strong enough. Many of them, egged on by Mr. Trump, were loath to give Mr. Biden a legislative victory in an election year.

“Donald Trump begged them to vote ‘no’ because he was worried that more border enforcement would hurt him politically,” Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said in a statement on Tuesday. He added: “The American people want bipartisan solutions to border security — not cynical politics.”

Immigration advocates and some progressive Democrats have expressed concern that Mr. Biden was abandoning his promise to rebuild the asylum system.

“By reviving Trump’s asylum ban, President Biden has undermined American values and abandoned our nation’s obligations to provide people fleeing persecution, violence, and authoritarianism with an opportunity to seek refuge in the U.S.,” said Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California.

Mr. Biden said that those who believe his latest restrictions are too strict should be “patient.” He said in the coming weeks he would speak about “how we can make our immigration system more fair and more just.”

Tuesday’s decision is a stark turnaround for Mr. Biden, who came into office attacking Mr. Trump for his efforts to restrict asylum. During a 2019 debate, Mr. Biden, then a candidate running against Mr. Trump for the first time, excoriated his rival’s policies.

“This is the first president in the history of the United States of America that anybody seeking asylum has to do it in another country,” Mr. Biden said at the time.

Mr. Trump tried several times to close the U.S. border to asylum seekers, succeeding only in 2020 when he used a Covid-era emergency rule to seal the border to most migrants.

Immigration has proved to be a huge political vulnerability for Mr. Biden, reaching a crisis in December, when about 10,000 people a day were making their way into the United States.

Biden administration officials, panicked over those numbers, pressed Mexico to do more to curb migration. Mexican officials have since used charter flights and buses to move migrants deeper south and away from the United States.

The number of people crossing has plunged since then, though the numbers are still historically high. On Sunday, more than 3,500 people crossed without authorization, in line with the trends of recent weeks, according to a person with knowledge of the data.

Even with the executive order in place, migrants could still apply for other protections designed for those who can prove they will be tortured in their home country. But that screening has a much higher bar than asylum and as a result, administration officials said they do not expect many migrants to be screened into the United States.

People who cross illegally and do not qualify for those other protections would be subject to a five-year prohibition on entering the United States.

White House officials believe the order provides Mr. Biden an opportunity to take Republicans to task for dooming the bipartisan bill. That legislation also would have provided billions to the Homeland Security Department for more border officers and immigration judges.

Mr. Biden cannot provide those resources through executive action. White House officials for weeks said they preferred legislation over presidential proclamation because it would be more lasting and less exposed to a court challenge.

The order also comes with some political risks. Republicans have questioned why Mr. Biden did not take unilateral action at the border sooner. In January, he told reporters that he had “done all I can do” at the border and that he needed help from Congress.

“It’s all about show, because he knows we have a debate coming up in three weeks,” Mr. Trump said Tuesday on social media.

As Mr. Biden considered whether to take executive action in recent months, his administration has taken smaller steps to try to control those backlogs.

In May, the administration proposed a rule change that would allow officers to quickly identify people who are ineligible for asylum, such as those who have been convicted of serious crimes. Currently, they may be allowed to enter the country and wait months, or often years, for asylum proceedings. The proposal must go through a 30-day public comment period.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services also issued a new policy in May instructing asylum officers to consider whether applicants could find refuge in their own countries before coming to the United States.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs is a White House correspondent, covering President Biden and his administration. More about Zolan Kanno-Youngs

Hamed Aleaziz covers the Department of Homeland Security and immigration policy. More about Hamed Aleaziz

Biden signs executive action drastically tightening border

WASHINGTON — Facing mounting political pressure over the migrant influx at the southern border, President Joe Biden on Tuesday signed an executive action that will temporarily shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between official ports of entry, according to a senior administration official.

“The border is not a political issue to be weaponized," Biden said in a White House speech announcing the order.

The shutdown would go into effect immediately since that threshold has already been met, a senior administration official said. The border would reopen only once that number falls to 1,500. The president’s order would come under the Immigration and Nationality Act sections 212(f) and 215(a) suspending entry of noncitizens who cross the southern border into the United States unlawfully. 

Senior administration officials said Tuesday in a call with reporters that “individuals who cross the southern border unlawfully or without authorization will generally be ineligible for asylum, absent exceptionally compelling circumstances, unless they are accepted by the proclamation.”

The officials said that migrants who don’t meet the requirement of having a "credible fear" when they apply for asylum will be immediately removable, and they “anticipate that we will be removing those individuals in a matter of days, if not hours,”

The White House conveyed details of the long-awaited move to lawmakers on Monday , but confirmed details of the executive action Tuesday morning ahead of planned remarks by the president in the East Room of the White House alongside mayors from several border towns.

“It’s definitely a step in the right direction,” said Texas state Rep. Eddie Morales Jr., whose district includes Eagle Pass. “One of a number of steps that are necessary for us to be able to secure the border.”

In 2018, the Trump administration tried to enact similar border restrictions but courts blocked them. The Biden administration now expects to defend the executive action against legal challenges.

The executive action will also have some exceptions, including for unaccompanied children. 

In a written statement, Donald Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavett claimed that exception would give a “green light to child traffickers and sex traffickers” while reiterating the former president’s rallying cry that “the border invasion and migrant crime will not stop until Crooked Joe Biden is deported from the White House.”

Republican lawmakers are slamming the move as too little, too late. 

“(Biden) created a crisis at the border intentionally,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. “(The executive action) has more political risk than political benefit, particularly because his own base is going to reject it.”

But the White House has repeatedly argued that it was congressional Republicans who have failed to act on immigration. Earlier this year, Trump urged House GOP members to kill a bipartisan border funding bill that had been negotiated in the Senate. At the time, House Speaker Mike Johnson and other Republicans said that the Senate bill didn’t go far enough and they argued that a more hard-line immigration bill in the House was preferable. 

“President Biden has led a historic opening of lawful pathways for individuals to and including families, to enter the United States through a lawful process, including the CBP One mobile application to request an appointment to present at a port of entry, as well as family reunification programs in countries throughout the region and a historic parole process for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans,” a senior administration official said. “And so this measure that we are announcing today comes alongside those lawful pathways,”

The executive action comes on the heels of a  historic presidential election in Mexico  and just as the campaign in the U.S. ramps up. Trump has a  30-point edge with registered voters  on the question of which candidate would better handle immigration and border security, including a 23-point edge among Latino voters, according to a late-March CNBC national poll.

Many immigrant advocates are furious at the president’s harsher immigration policies and argue the changes will cause chaos.

“It is a betrayal of what we were told in his campaign four years ago,” said Lindsay Toczylowski, the executive director for the California-based Immigrant Defenders Law Center. “We were told that President Biden would be restoring humanity at our border. … But what we are seeing is that history is repeating itself.”

Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants’ Rights Project who argued the challenge to asylum restrictions during the Trump administration, said the advocacy group planned to sue.

“ A ban on asylum is illegal just as it was when Trump unsuccessfully tried it,” Gelernt said in a statement.

Gelernt on Tuesday said the ACLU was still working out the timing of the lawsuit and where it would be filed during an interview with NBC News' Tom Llamas.

"I'm hoping that we can convince the administration, if not the courts, that this is misguided and illegal, and maybe the administration can pull it back or mitigate it," Gelernt said.

When asked about potential lawsuits during a call with reporters on Tuesday, a senior administration official said the agency was "prepared" for any forthcoming legal battles.

“I think we are accustomed to being litigated, frankly, from both sides of the political spectrum, for just about any measure we take in this space, and that is just yet another sign that there is no lasting solution to the challenges we are facing without Congress doing its job,” the official said.

CORRECTION (June 5, 2024 10:05 a.m. ET) A previous version of this article misstated the last name of the Texas state representative who represents Eagle Pass. He is Eddie Morales Jr. not Jones Jr.

Gabe Gutierrez is a senior White House correspondent for NBC News.

Monica Alba is a White House correspondent for NBC News.

• International

Israel-Hamas war

Hunter Biden's gun trial

D-Day 80th anniversary

D-Day 80th anniversary in Normandy

By Joshua Berlinger, Antoinette Radford, Shania Shelton and Kyle Feldscher, CNN

Our live coverage of the 80th anniversary of D-Day has ended. Read more about D-Day here or scroll through the posts on today's events below.

French President Emmanuel Macron: "Let us be worthy of those who landed here"

From CNN's Joshua Berlinger and Emmanuel Miculita in Paris

French President Emmanuel Macron closed the international ceremony marking 80 years since D-Day with a speech honoring the soldiers who fought in the largest seaborne invasion in human history and, as other leaders have done throughout the day, drawing parallels to the current geopolitical unrest — most notably the war in Ukraine.

Perhaps the strongest part of Macron's speech was its end, in which he honored Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — who was in attendance — and the Ukrainian people's fight against Russia.

"Faced with the return of war to our continent, faced with the questioning of everything they fought for, faced with those who claim to change borders by force or rewrite history, let us be worthy of those who landed here. Your presence here today, Mr. President of Ukraine, says it all,” Macron said, followed by a brief interruption of the roar of a fighter jet flyover.

Europe has not seen the type of ground conflict that is raging in Ukraine since the end of World War II, and this year’s anniversary comes as Russian forces advance on the battlefield – handing Kyiv a series of tactical defeats and poking holes in the already fragile Western alliance opposed to the Kremlin’s war.

"We know that liberty is a fight for every morning," Macron added. "For everyone in this world that lives hoping for liberty, for equality, for fraternity the sixth of June is a day without end, a never-ending dawn."

World War II veteran dies while traveling to France for D-Day anniversary

From CNN’s Dakin Andone

Robert Persichitti, a 102-year-old World War II US Navy veteran, died last week while on his way to France to commemorate  the 80th anniversary of D-Day , according to Honor Flight Rochester, a veterans organization.

Persichitti was a “wonderful, pleasant, humble guy,” who was “easy to talk to,” said Honor Flight Rochester President and CEO Richard Stewart, who told CNN he learned of his friend’s death last Friday.

“We miss him,” said Stewart.

While Persichitti passed away bound for Normandy — where the Allied forces’  landing on June 6, 1944 , laid the foundation for the defeat of Nazi Germany — he served in the Pacific as a radioman aboard the USS Eldorado, Stewart said. His tour of duty included Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Guam, according to Stewart and  the New York State Senate Veterans Hall of Fame , into which Persichitti was inducted in 2020.

Persichitti fell ill last week during a stop in Germany while headed for Normandy, Al DeCarlo, a friend who was traveling with Persichitti, told  CNN affiliate WHAM . Persichitti was airlifted to the hospital and died soon after, DeCarlo said.

“The doctor was with him. He was not alone, he was at peace and he was comfortable,” DeCarlo said. “She put his favorite singer, Frank Sinatra, on her phone and he peacefully left us.”

Persichitti had heart problems in the past, “but for 102, I would say he was in superb health,” Stewart told CNN.

Persichitti was born in a coal mining town outside Pittsburgh, Stewart said, describing his friend's “humble, poor beginnings.” After the war, Persichitti worked as a carpentry teacher in Rochester, New York, according to the Veterans Hall of Fame, and in 1972 received a degree from SUNY Buffalo.

Trump posts tribute on 80th anniversary of D-Day landings in Normandy

From CNN's Kate Sullivan

Former US President Donald Trump on Thursday posted a tribute to the “immortal heroes who landed at Normandy” to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy. 

“Today, we honor the immortal heroes who landed at Normandy 80 years ago. The men of D-Day will live forever in history as among the bravest, noblest, and greatest Americans ever to walk the earth. They shed their blood, and thousands gave their lives, in defense of American Freedom. They are in our hearts today and for all time,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

France's Macron awards 3 more people the Legion of Honor

From CNN's Emmanuel Miculita and Joshua Berlinger in Paris

French President Emmanuel Macron used the international ceremony commemorating the 80th anniversary of D-Day to award the Legion of Honor, France's highest military or civilian distinction, to three more American veterans: Joseph Miller, Richard Calvin Rung and Arlester Brown.

Earlier in the day, Macron awarded the Legion of Honor to Christian Lamb , a 104-year-old British woman credited with having made the maps for the D-Day landing, and 11 other American veterans.

Testimonials and musical performances are taking place during international ceremony

As the international ceremony marking the 80th anniversary of D-Day on Omaha Beach is underway, testimonials from those who fought in the war are currently being read out.

Along with the testimonials, musical performances are demonstrated in front of attendees.

French President Emmanuel Macron is set to deliver an address later during the ceremony.

Austin says "Ukraine matters" in the midst of D-Day ceremonies

From CNN's Shania Shelton

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin discussed Russia's war in Ukraine while participating in D-Day ceremonies, telling CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "Ukraine matters."

"I have engaged members of Congress on both sides, in both parties. I have seen throughout strong support for Ukraine, and even though it took a while to get the legislation through, I was confident that that the right thing was going to happen."

He continued, "Because anytime you see that type of support on both sides of the aisle for a cause, Congress will find a way to get things done, which is what they did in this case, because it's the right thing to do."

The international ceremony is underway

From CNN's Josh Berlinger in Paris

The international ceremony marking the 80th anniversary of D-Day on Omaha Beach has begun.

More than 20 heads of state and government and representatives from royal families across Europe are in attendance.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrives at international ceremony to standing ovation

From CNN's Joshua Berlinger in Paris

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived at Thursday's international ceremony to commemorate the 80th anniversary of D-Day to a standing ovation and a rousing applause.

Zelensky's presence — and Russian leader Vladimir Putin's absence, despite Soviet Russia's key role in winning the war in Europe — is highly symbolic given how the war in Ukraine is casting a shadow over the day's events.

Several world leaders have already used their speeches to cast parallels between Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the aggression of Nazi Germany that sparked World War II.

Watch the moment here:

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Judge denies request to restrict Trump statements about law enforcement in classified records case

Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media outside of his trial at Manhattan Criminal Court, Tuesday, May 28, 2024, in New York. (Steven Hirsch/New York Post via AP, Pool)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s classified documents case in Florida on Tuesday denied prosecutors’ request to bar the former president from making public statements that could endanger law enforcement agents participating in the prosecution.

Prosecutors had told U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that the restriction was necessary to protect law enforcement from potential threats and harassment after the presumptive Republican presidential nominee baselessly claimed that the Biden administration wanted to kill him during a search of his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, nearly two years ago.

Cannon chided prosecutors in her order denying their request, saying they didn’t give defense lawyers adequate time to discuss the matter before it was filed Friday evening. The judge warned prosecutors that failing to comply with court requirements in the future may lead to sanctions. She denied the request without prejudice, meaning prosecutors could file it again.

A spokesperson for special counsel Jack Smith’s team declined to comment Tuesday.

The judge’s decision came as Trump’s lawyers were delivering their closing argument at trial in another criminal case he’s facing in New York stemming from a hush money payment to a porn actor during the 2016 presidential campaign.

It’s the latest example of bitterness between Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, and prosecutors who have accused the former president of illegally hoarding at his Mar-a-Lago estate classified documents that he took with him after he left the White House in 2021 and then obstructing the FBI’s efforts to get them back. Trump has pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing.

Cannon has chided prosecutors both in hearings and in court papers over a number of matters, including telling Smith’s team during one hearing that it was “wasting the court’s time.” Prosecutors have also signaled mounting frustration with Cannon’s rulings, saying in one recent court filing that a request from the judge was based on a “fundamentally flawed legal premise.”

Prosecutors’ request followed a distorted claim by Trump last week that the FBI agents who searched his Mar-a-Lago estate in August 2022 were “authorized to shoot me” and were “locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger.”

Trump was referring to the disclosure in a court document that the FBI, during the search followed a standard use-of-force policy that prohibits the use of deadly force except when the officer conducting the search has a reasonable belief that the “subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.”

The Justice Department policy is routine and meant to limit, rather than encourage, the use of force during searches. Prosecutors noted that the search of the Florida property was intentionally conducted when Trump and his family were out of state and was coordinated in advance with the U.S. Secret Service. No force was used.

Prosecutors said in court papers late Friday that Trump’s false suggestion that federal agents “were complicit in a plot to assassinate him” exposes law enforcement officers “to the risk of threats, violence, and harassment.” They had urged the judge to bar Trump from making any comments that “pose a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents” participating in the case.

Defense attorneys in a court filing late Monday called prosecutors’ proposed restriction on Trump’s speech “unconstitutional” and noted that the identities of law enforcement officers in the case are subject to a protective order preventing their public release. Defense attorneys said they asked Smith’s team on Friday if the two sides could meet on Monday to give the defense time to discuss the request with Trump before prosecutors filed it.

But prosecutor David Harbach said the situation needed to be addressed urgently, saying in an email to the defense that Trump created a situation that “necessitated a prompt request for relief that could not wait the weekend to file.” Prosecutors told the judge in their filing late Friday while Trump’s lawyers didn’t believe there is any “imminent danger,” Trump had continued that day to make false statements “smearing and endangering the agents who executed the search.”

A spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, Steven Cheung, said in a statement Tuesday that “the entire documents case was a political sham from the very beginning and it should be thrown out entirely.”

It’s among four criminal cases Trump is confronting as he seeks to reclaim the White House, but outside of the ongoing New York hush money prosecution , it’s unclear that any of the other three will reach trial before the November election.

Trump has already had restrictions placed on his speech in two of the other cases over incendiary comments officials say threaten the integrity of the prosecutions.

In the New York case, Trump has been fined and threatened with jail time for repeatedly violating a gag order that bars him from making public statements about witnesses, jurors and some others connected to the matter.

He’s also subject to a gag order in his federal criminal election interference case in Washington. That order limits what he can say about witnesses, lawyers in the case and court staff, though an appeals court freed him to speak about special counsel Smith, who brought the case.

Associated Press reporter Eric Tucker in Washington contributed.