Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
A colossal elevated highway begins to shudder and collapse high above the ground. Concrete cracks thunder through the air as entire sections tilt and break apart. An evacuation team in orange vests and helmets scrambles for their lives—some sprinting across the lower roadway, others dangling from scaffolding and rescue baskets as cranes swing frantically into position. Dust clouds rise, steel bends, and the atmosphere turns chaotic as the towering structure threatens to come crashing down. The scene is filled with panic, urgency, and cinematic disaster intensity.
A major highway under construction shows alarming structural failure. Large cracks appear in the elevated roadway while dust and debris begin to fall. The evacuation team, dressed in orange vests and helmets, immediately begins escaping—workers on the ground run toward safety while those on scaffolding and lifts descend quickly. Cranes and construction equipment stand by as the highway shakes. The scene captures the tense, real-life urgency of trained workers evacuating before a catastrophic collapse.
In this Aug. 5, 2007 photo, vehicles are strewn amongst the wreckage of Interstate 35W bridge which collapsed over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2017 marks the ten-year anniversary of the disaster killed 13 people and injured 145. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green, File) (Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)
MINNEAPOLIS – Ten years ago Tuesday, a bridge carrying a busy stretch of freeway collapsed without warning into the Mississippi River in downtown Minneapolis during the evening rush hour. Many leaders saw the disaster, which killed 13 people and injured 145, as a wake-up call about the country’s deteriorating infrastructure.
Here’s a look at what happened, what’s changed since then, and how Minnesota is marking the anniversary:
THE COLLAPSE
The Interstate 35W bridge was one of the busiest in Minnesota before it fell Aug. 1, 2007.
First responders scrambled to rescue survivors from the debris, including a school bus carrying 52 students and several adults. Navy divers spent two weeks recovering bodies from dark waters full of sharp steel. Federal investigators stayed for months. A fast-tracked replacement opened less than 14 months later.
The state and two contractors ultimately paid out more than $100 million to survivors and families of the dead. Most used the money to cover medical bills and get on with their lives. One young survivor from the bus used much of his money in 2014 to travel to Turkey and Syria to join the Islamic State group. He’s still believed to be in Syria.
THE CAUSE
While the collapse drew attention to the condition of America’s aging infrastructure, federal investigators said poor maintenance wasn’t the chief cause. They ruled it was a design defect in the bridge, which was built in the 1960s.
The National Transportation Safety Board said that crucial gusset plates that held the bridge’s beams together were only half as thick as they should have been. A contributing factor was the nearly 300 tons of construction materials stockpiled on the deck for renovations.
The 35W bridge had been rated “structurally deficient,” a term that means in need of repair or replacement, before it fell. It was also “fracture critical,” which means bridges at risk of collapse if a single, vital component fails. While neither category means there is an immediate safety threat, they are red flags.
Emergency personnel work at the scene where the Interstate 35W bridge collapses over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. (AP)
WHAT CHANGED
The American Society of Civil Engineers says the number of structurally deficient bridges nationwide declined from 12 percent in 2007 to 9 percent today. Minnesota improved from 8 percent to 6 percent, according to the group’s latest report card on the country’s infrastructure. The figures ranged from 2 percent in Nevada to 25 percent in Rhode Island. The report card still estimates it would take $123 billion to address the nation’s backlog of bridge rehabilitation needs.
The improvements happened because states stepped up, said Andy Hermann, a former president of the society and one of its experts on bridges. He said federal funding has been “pretty stagnant,” but about 20 states raised taxes to increase their bridge spending.
Minnesota launched a 10-year, $2.5 billion improvement program in 2008 that targeted 172 structurally deficient or fracture-critical bridges. About 120 of them have been replaced or repaired, or will be soon. Another 32 need only routine maintenance. Most of the rest will be repaired or replaced by late 2018. And the state now requires a formal independent peer review during the design phase for major bridges to minimize the risk of critical errors.
The collapse gave added impetus to a nationwide trend of design improvements, Hermann said. Most bridges built in the 1950s and 60s were designed to last around 50 years, he said. Newer bridges are typically designed to last 75 to 100 years, he said. Engineers are also choosing improved materials, he said, such as better steel and concrete.
The collapse also turned a new focus on inspection. Bridges typically are inspected every two years, but Congress has mandated a more data-driven approach that will mean more frequent inspections for some, and longer intervals for others, to focus resources on the biggest risks. That plan is still in rulemaking.
THE FUTURE
It’s unclear whether anything will come from President Donald Trump’s proposal for a $1 trillion overhaul of the country’s roads and bridges. While he held a week of events last month to tout the idea, he has yet to flesh out the details and it hasn’t gained much traction in Congress. His budget proposal calls for $200 billion in tax breaks over nine years that theoretically would leverage $1 trillion worth of construction.
This file photo shows one of the failed gusset plates blamed for the Aug. 1, 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35W Bridge in downtown Minneapolis. (AP)
THE ANNIVERSARY
Minneapolis is taking a low-key approach. Leaders will hold a ceremony for survivors, families and first responders at the city’s Emergency Operations Training Facility, several miles upstream from the collapse site, where a piece of the bridge will be installed permanently outside.
The Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, which led much of the response, held a wreath-laying ceremony earlier in July on the river with Navy divers who participated in the recovery.
And the Mill City Museum, just a few blocks upstream from the site, opened a display July 28 of one of the failed gusset plates.
The Trump administration’s efforts to reshape America’s immigration system entered a new phase this week as the Justice Department confirmed that another San Francisco immigration judge has been dismissed.Judge Shira Levine, appointed in late 2021, became the sixth judge removed from the city’s immigration bench since President Donald Trump returned to the White House.The decision underscores the administration’s determination to accelerate mass deportations and restructure the immigration judiciary, even amid fierce criticism from immigrant advocates, former judges, and legal organizations.Levine’s dismissal was abrupt. According to reports, she received no explanation for her removal, learning only that her services were no longer required.Her departure followed a wave of firings since April, with Judges Chloe Dillon and Elisa Brasil — both of whom had among the nation’s highest asylum approval rates — also being forced out.Dillon, who granted asylum in nearly 97% of her cases, said she was informed of her firing by a three-sentence email after returning from a years-long asylum hearing.In her account, she had already prepared her ruling in favor of a family seeking refuge when the dismissal arrived, leaving her unable to deliver a decision. She described packing up her office in less than two hours, with no clarity on who would inherit her docket of more than 6,000 cases. Five of the six dismissed judges had asylum approval rates well above the national average. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) reported that while the national asylum approval rate had dipped below 36% last year, San Francisco’s bench was granting asylum at rates more than twice as high.For critics, the pattern is unmistakable: judges with professional backgrounds in immigrant defense or public interest law are being removed, while judges who previously advanced as immigration prosecutors remain in place.Supporters of the administration’s moves frame them as necessary to restore balance to an immigration system that they say has grown too lenient. They argue that immigration judges must follow strict statutory standards and that unusually high asylum approval rates reflect a failure to apply those standards consistently.President Trump’s 2024 campaign made mass deportation a cornerstone issue, promising to overhaul the courts to ensure quicker, tougher rulings. The dismissals in San Francisco are being portrayed by allies as part of fulfilling that mandate.The Justice Department insists that all federal employees, including immigration judges, serve at the will of the executive branch.Trump-era reforms emphasized that immigration courts are not independent judicial bodies but administrative tribunals under the Department of Justice. That legal framework allows for at-will dismissals without formal cause.Immigrant advocates and former judges view the firings as politically motivated purges. Dana Leigh Marks, a longtime San Francisco immigration judge, argued that the pattern reflects ideological targeting rather than legitimate performance concerns.“They are specifically targeting one end of the spectrum because they don’t like those results,” Marks told reporters. She suggested the dismissals send a chilling message to remaining judges: grant too many asylum cases, and you risk your job.Others worry that the restructuring undermines judicial independence. By rewarding judges who deny asylum and removing those who grant it, critics say the administration is transforming immigration courts into enforcement arms rather than neutral adjudicators.Civil rights groups have also raised alarms about due process. They argue that applicants appearing before the immigration court are entitled to impartial hearings, not proceedings overseen by judges pressured to meet political targets.The firings are not just an internal matter for the courts; they carry real-world consequences for thousands of immigrants. With judges dismissed mid-docket, hearings have been delayed or reassigned. Families who had waited years for their cases now face further uncertainty.San Francisco has historically been one of the nation’s friendliest jurisdictions for asylum seekers, with higher rates of legal representation and stronger networks of nonprofit support.Critics argue that dismantling this bench is designed to reduce approval rates in one of the few places where applicants had a fighting chance.Already, national approval rates have fallen sharply. TRAC data shows that approval rates plummeted from roughly 50% in fiscal year 2019 to less than 36% in 2024.Advocates warn the current restructuring could push them even lower, further narrowing the path for those fleeing violence, persecution, or political oppression abroad.The firings also reflect a broader political agenda. President Trump’s administration has tied immigration policy to its themes of national security and economic protectionism.By reshaping the immigration courts, the White House is seeking to accelerate deportations and limit humanitarian relief, making good on campaign pledges to prioritize removal over refuge.Democrats in Congress have denounced the firings as a partisan assault on judicial independence. They argue that immigration courts already face overwhelming backlogs — with more than 3 million cases pending nationwide — and that dismissing experienced judges will only worsen the crisis.The administration, however, is not retreating. Last month, the Justice Department announced that 600 military lawyers would be authorized to serve as temporary immigration judges, reducing the traditional requirement that such appointees have prior immigration law experience.Critics see this as a move to stack the courts with adjudicators more likely to rule in favor of the government.Underlying the controversy is a deeper struggle over how asylum law should be interpreted. Traditionally, asylum has been granted to individuals who demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their home countries based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.Advocates argue that these categories must adapt to modern realities such as gang violence, gender-based persecution, or climate displacement. The Trump administration, by contrast, has sought to narrow eligibility criteria and speed up denials.By removing judges with histories of expansive interpretations, the administration appears intent on reshaping not just who sits on the bench but also the very meaning of asylum under U.S. law.The dismissals in San Francisco may be a preview of broader national restructuring. If the administration continues removing judges with higher-than-average asylum approval rates, the immigration judiciary could be fundamentally reshaped within a few years.Supporters say this would restore discipline and uniformity. Critics warn it could erode due process and tarnish America’s reputation as a haven for the persecuted.Either way, the firings highlight the extraordinary power presidents wield over immigration courts, which unlike Article III courts lack independence from the executive branch.As the Trump administration pushes forward with its agenda, the nation’s immigration system is becoming not just a legal battleground but a political flashpoint, reflecting deeper divisions over identity, sovereignty, and humanitarian obligations.The dismissal of Judge Shira Levine and her colleagues marks more than just personnel changes. It symbolizes the administration’s determination to enforce a new vision of immigration justice — one where asylum is harder to obtain, deportations are prioritized, and judicial discretion is tightly controlled.For President Trump and his allies, the firings represent a necessary step in delivering on campaign promises of mass deportation and strict border enforcement. For critics, they mark a dangerous politicization of the courts and a betrayal of American ideals.As more judges face dismissal and military lawyers take their place, the future of the immigration system remains uncertain. What is clear is that the courtroom has become yet another arena where the nation’s political battles are being fought, and where the stakes — for immigrants, for workers, and for the balance of power — could not be higher.