ALEX BLOG

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A year after her husband died, a mother of three in Utah self-published a children's book that she said helped her sons cope with the sudden loss.Kouri Richinspromoted her book "Are You With Me?" on a local TV station and drew praise for helping young children process the death of a parent.

Weeks after the book's publication in 2023, she was arrested in her husband's death and charged with murder.

The arrest sent shock waves through her small mountain town just outside Park City, where a 12-person jury is set to decide her fate in amonthlong trialthat starts Monday.

Richins, 35, faces nearly three dozen counts in connection with her husband's death, including aggravated murder, attempted murder, forgery, mortgage fraud and insurance fraud. She has pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors say she killed her husband, Eric Richins, at their home in March 2022 by slipping fentanyl into a cocktail that he drank. They say she was deep in debt and killed him for financial gain while planning a future with another man she was seeing on the side.

The chilling case of a once-respected local author accused of profiting off her own violent crime has captivated true-crime enthusiasts in the years since her arrest. Once lauded as a touching read, her book has since become a tool for prosecutors in arguing that she carried out a calculated killing.

Her defense attorneys, Wendy Lewis, Kathy Nester and Alex Ramos, said they are confident the jury will rule in Richins' favor after hearing her side of the story.

"Kouri has waited nearly three years for this moment: the opportunity to have the facts of this case heard by a jury, free from the prosecution's narrative that has dominated headlines since her arrest," her legal team said in a statement. "What the public has been told bears little resemblance to the truth."

Documents allege two poisonings

On the night of her husband's death, Richins called 911 to report that she had found him "cold to the touch" at the foot of their bed, according to the police report. He was pronounced dead, and a medical examiner later found five times the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system.

That wasnot her first attempt on his life, charging documents allege.

Advertisement

A month earlier, on Valentine's Day, Eric Richins told friends he broke out in hives and blacked out after taking one bite of a sandwich that Richins had left for him. She had bought the sandwich the same week police say she also purchased fentanyl pills from the family's housekeeper. Opioids, including fentanyl, can cause severe allergic reactions.

After injecting himself with his son's EpiPen and chugging the allergy medication Benadryl, Eric Richins woke from a deep sleep and called a friend to say, "I think my wife tried to poison me," the friend said in a written testimony.

A day after Valentine's Day, Kouri Richins texted her alleged lover, "If he could just go away ... life would be so perfect."

Key witnesses

The friend Eric Richins called that night and the housekeeper who claims to have sold his wife the drugs could be key witnesses in the upcoming trial. Others may include family members and the man with whom Kouri Richins was allegedly having an affair.

The prosecution's star witness, housekeeper Carmen Lauber, told police she gave Richins fentanyl pills she bought from a dealer a couple of days before Valentine's Day. Later that month, Richins allegedly told the housekeeper that the pills she provided were not strong enough and asked her to procure stronger fentanyl, according to charging documents.

Defense attorneys are expected to argue that Lauber did not actually give Richins fentanyl and was motivated to lie for legal protection. Lauber is not charged in connection with the case, and detectives said at an earlier hearing that she had been granted immunity.

No fentanyl pills were ever found in Richins' home, and the housekeeper's dealer said he was in jail and detoxing from drug use when he told detectives in 2023 that he had sold Lauber fentanyl. He later said in a sworn affidavit that he only sold her the opioid OxyContin.

Money as motivation

Charging documents indicate Eric Richins met with a divorce attorney and an estate planner in October 2020, a month after he discovered that his wife made some major financial decisions without his knowledge. She had a negative bank account balance, owed lenders more than $1.8 million and was being sued by a creditor, according to court documents.

Prosecutors say Kouri Richins mistakenly believed she would inherit her husband's estate under terms of their prenuptial agreement. She had also opened numerous life insurance policies on her husband without his knowledge, with benefits totaling nearly $2 million, prosecutors allege.

She is also accused of forging loan applications and fraudulently claiming insurance benefits after her husband's death.

WASHINGTON (AP) — TheSupreme Court on Friday struck downPresident Donald Trump'sbiggest and boldest tariffs. But the justices left a $133 billion question unanswered: What's going to happen to the money the government has already collected in import taxes now declared unlawful?

Trump Tariffs

Companies have beenlining up for refunds. But the way forward could prove chaotic.

When the smoke clears, trade lawyers say, importers are likely to get money back — eventually. "It's going to be a bumpy ride for awhile," said trade lawyer Joyce Adetutu, a partner at the Vinson & Elkins law firm.

The refund process is likely to be hashed out by a mix of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, the specialized Court of International Trade in New York and other lower courts, according to a note to clients by lawyers at the legal firm Clark Hill.

"The amount of money is substantial," Adetutu said. "The courts are going to have a hard time. Importers are going to have a hard time.''

Still, she added, "it's going to be really difficult not to have some sort of refund option'' given how decisively the Supreme Court repudiated Trump's tariffs.

In its 6-3 opinion on Friday, the court ruled Trump's attempt to use an emergency powers law to enact the levies was not valid. Two of the three justices appointed by Trump joined the majority in striking down the first major piece of his second-term agenda to come before them.

At issue are double-digit tariffs Trump imposed on almost every country in the world last year by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Supreme Court ruled that the law did not give the president authority to tax imports, a power that belongs to Congress.

The U.S. customs agency has already collected$133 billion in IEEPA tariffsas of mid-December. Butconsumers hoping for a refundare unlikely to be compensated for the higher prices they paid when companies passed along the cost of the tariffs; that's more likely to go to the companies themselves.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh dinged his colleagues for dodging the refund issue: "The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.''

Borrowing a word that Justice Amy Coney Barrett — who sided with the majority — used during the court's November hearing on the case, Kavanaugh warned that "the refund process is likely to be a 'mess.'"

"I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years," Trump told reporters at a press conference Friday, in which he decried the court's decision and said he was "absolutely ashamed" of some justices who ruled against his tariffs. "We'll end up being in court for the next five years.''

The end of the IEEPA tariffs could help the economy by easing inflationary pressures. The tariff refunds — like other tax refunds — could stimulate spending and growth. But the impacts are likely to be modest.

Most countries still face steep tariffs from the U.S. on specific sectors, and Trump intends to replace the IEEPA leviesusing other options. The refunds that do get issued will take time to roll out — 12 to 18 months, estimates TD Securities.

Advertisement

The U.S. customs agency does have a process for refunding duties when importers can show there's been some kind of error. The agency might try to build on the existing system to refund Trump's IEEPA tariffs, said trade lawyer Dave Townsend, a partner with the law firm Dorsey & Whitney.

And there has been a precedent for courts making arrangements to give companies their money back in trade cases. In the 1990s, the courts struck down as unconstitutional a harbor maintenance fee on exports and set up a system for exporters to apply for refunds.

But the courts and U.S. customs have never had to deal with anything like this — thousands of importers and tens of billions of dollars at once.

"Just because the process is difficult to administer doesn't mean the government has the right to hold on to fees that were collected unlawfully,″ said trade lawyer Alexis Early, partner at the law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner.

Ryan Majerus, a partner at King & Spalding and a former U.S. trade official, said it's hard to know how the government will deal with the massive demand for refunds. It might try to streamline the process, perhaps setting up a special website where importers can claim their refunds.

But Adetutu warns that "the government is well-positioned to make this as difficult as possible for importers. I can see a world where they push as much responsibility as possible onto the importer'' — maybe forcing them to go to court to seek the refunds.

Many companies, including Costco, Revlon and canned seafood and chicken producer Bumble Bee Foods, filed lawsuits claiming refunds even before the Supreme Court ruled, essentially seeking to be at the head of line if the tariffs were struck down.

There are likely to be more legal battles ahead. Manufacturers might, for example, sue for a share of any refunds given to suppliers that jacked up the price of raw materials to cover the tariffs.

"We may see years of ongoing litigation in multiple jurisdictions,'' Early said.

Consumers, though, are unlikely to enjoy a refund windfall. The higher prices they've had to pay would likely be hard to attribute to a specific tariff. Should they pursue refunds anyway? Early wouldn't advise wasting money on legal fees, but said: "In America, we have the ability to file a lawsuit for anything we want.''

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat and Trump antagonist, is demanding a refund on behalf of his state's 5.11 million households. In a letter addressed to Trump and released by Pritzker's gubernatorial campaign, the governor said the tariffs had cost each Illinois household $1,700 — or $8.7 billion. Pritzker said failure to pay will elicit "further action.''

Nevada Treasurer Zach Conine submitted a payment request to the federal government for $2.1 billion to recoup the costs of the tariffs, his office announced Friday.

"As Nevada's chief investment officer, I have a responsibility to try to recoup every single dollar that the Trump Administration takes from Nevada families," Conine said in a statement.

AP Writers Lindsay Whitehurst and Christopher Rugaber in Washington, Jessica Hill in Las Vegas and John O'Connor in Springfield, Illinois, contributed to this story.

NEW YORK (AP) — Businesses face a new wave of uncertainty afterthe Supreme Court struck down tariffsimposed by President Donald Trump under an emergency powers law and Trump vowed to work around the ruling to keep his tariffs in place.

APTOPIX Supreme Court Tariffs Trump

The Trump administration says its tariffs help boost American manufacturers and reduce the trade gap. But many U.S. businesses have had toraise pricesand adjust in other ways to offsethigher costs spurred by the tariffs.

It remains to be seen how much relief businesses and consumers will actually get from Friday's ruling. Within hours of the court's decision, Trump pledged to use a different law to impose a 10% tariff on all imports that would last 150 days, and to explore other ways to impose additional tariffs on countries he says engage in unfair trade practices.

"Any boost to the economy from lowering tariffs in the near-term is likely to be partly offset by a prolonged period of uncertainty," said Michael Pearce, an economist at Oxford Economics. "With the administration likely to rebuild tariffs through other, more durable, means, the overall tariffs rate may yet end up settling close to current levels."

Efforts to claw back the estimated $133 billion to $175 billion of previously collected tariffs now deemed illegal are bound to be complicated, and will likely favor larger companies with more resources.Consumers hoping for a refundare unlikely to be compensated.

The fight against tariffs continues

With Trump's unyielding position on tariffs, many business are braced for years of court battles.

Basic Fun, a Florida-based maker of toys such as Lincoln Logs and Tonka trucks, last week joined a slew of other businesses in a lawsuit seeking to claw back tariffs paid to the government.

While company CEO Jay Foreman is concerned about any new tariffs Trump may impose, he doesn't think they will affect toys. Still, he said, "I do worry about some type of perpetual fight over this, at least for the next three years."

The new 10% tariff Trump announced Friday immediately raised questions for Daniel Posner, the owner of Grapes The Wine Co., in White Plains, New York. Since wine shipments take about two weeks to cross the Atlantic, he wonders if a shipment arriving Monday will be affected.

"We're reactive to what's become a very unstable situation," Posner said.

Ron Kurnik owns Superior Coffee Roasting Co. in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, across the border from Canada. In addition to U.S. tariffs, Kurnik faced retaliatory tariffs from Canada for much of last year when he exported his coffee.

"It's like a nightmare we just want to wake up from," said Kurnik, whose company has raised prices by 6% twice since the tariffs went into effect. While he's pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling, he doesn't think he will ever see a refund.

Industries pine for more stability

A wide array of industries, including retail, tech and the agricultural sector, used the Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to remind Trump of how his trade policies have affected their businesses.

The Business Roundtable, a group that lobbies on behalf of more than 200 U.S. companies, released a statement encouraging the administration to limit the focus of tariffs going forward to specific unfair trade practices and national security concerns.

In the retail industry, stores of all stripes have embraced different ways to offset the effects of tariffs — from absorbing some of the costs themselves, to cutting expenses and diversifying their supply network. Still, they have had to pass on some price increases at a time when shoppers have been particularly sensitive to inflationary pressures.

Dave French, executive vice president of government relations for The National Retail Federation, the nation's largest retail industry trade group, said he hoped lower courts would ensure "a seamless process" to refund tariffs. That issue wasn't addressed in Friday's ruling.

Advertisement

For the technology sector, Trump's tariffs caused major headaches. Many of its products are either built overseas or depend on imports of key components. The Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represents a spectrum of technology companies employing more than 1.6 million people, expressed hope that the decision will ease the trade tensions.

"With this decision behind us, we look forward to bringing more stability to trade policy," said Jonathan McHale, the association's vice president for digital trade.

Farmers, who have been stung by higher prices for equipment and fertilizer since the tariffs went into effect, and reduced demand for their exports, also spoke out.

"We strongly encourage the president to avoid using any other available authorities to impose tariffs on agricultural inputs that would further increase costs," said American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall.

Industries that aren't feeling any relief

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give the president authority to tax imports, a power that belongs to Congress. But the decision only affects tariffs imposed under that law, so some industries will see no relief at all.

The decision leaves in effect tariffs on steel, upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities, according to the Home Furnishings Association, which represents 15,000 furniture stores in North America.

At Revolution Brewing in Chicago, the aluminum they use for cans costs as much as the ingredients that go inside them because of tariffs Trump has placed on metals that are not affected by the Supreme Court ruling. While the cans are made in Chicago, the aluminum comes from Canada, said Josh Deth, managing partner at the brewery.

Tariffs have been just one challenge for his business, which is also affected by volatile barley prices and a slowdown in demand for craft beer.

"Everything kind of adds up," he said. "The beverage industry needs relief here. We're getting crushed by the prices of aluminum."

Reaction overseas

Italian winemakers hard-hit by the tariffs greeted the Supreme Court decision with skepticism, warning that the decision may just deepen uncertainty around trade with the U.S.

The U.S. is Italy's largest wine market, with sales having tripled in value over the past 20 years. New tariffs on the EU, which the Trump administration initially threatened would be 200%, had sent fear throughout the industry, which remained even after the U.S. reduced, delayed and negotiated down.

"There is a more than likely risk that tariffs will be reimposed through alternative legal channels, compounded by the uncertainty this ruling may generate in commercial relations between Europe and the United States," said Lamberto Frescobaldi, president of UIV, a trade association that represents more than 800 winemakers.

Elsewhere in Europe, initial reaction focused on renewed upheaval and confusion regarding costs facing businesses exporting to the US.

Trump's tariffs could hit pharmaceuticals, chemicals and auto parts, said Carsten Brzeski, an economist at ING bank. "Europe should not be mistaken, this ruling will not bring relief," he said. "The legal authority may be different, but the economic impact could be identical or worse."

Anne D'Innocenzio in New York; Dee-Ann Durbin in Detroit; Michael Liedtke in San Francisco; David McHugh in Frankfurt, Germany; Jonathan Matisse in Nashville, Tennessee; Adrian Sainz in Memphis, Tennessee; and Nicole Winfield in Rome contributed to this report.

The Department of Justice fired longtime litigator James Hundley from his appointment to interim U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of Virginia, just hours after federal judges unanimously appointed him to the position.

Chief U.S. District Judge M. Hannah Lauck signed off on Hundley's appointment Friday evening and administered the oath of office in Richmond, Virginia, according to court documents.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blancheposted on Xshortly after, announcing Hundley had been fired.

"Here we go again. EDVA judges do not pick our US Attorney. POTUS does. James Hundley, you're fired!" Blanche said in the post.

Neither Hundley nor the DOJ responded to NBC News' requests for comment on the dismissal. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia declined to comment.

Hundley's appointment to the Eastern District of Virginia followed thedeparture of Trump loyalist Lindsey Halligan, who left the job in late January after a federal judge ruled that she held the role unlawfully.

Halligan, who was a former insurance attorney with no prosecutorial experience, led unsuccessful cases against New York Attorney General Leticia James and former FBI Director James Comey, both perceived Trump foes.

Advertisement

Federal law allows judges to appoint a U.S. attorney if a presidential nominee has not been confirmed within 120 days of their appointment.

This is not the first time the Justice Department has fired a U.S. attorney appointed by federal judges.

In July, Attorney General Pam Bondi fired Desiree Leigh Grace after she was appointed asU.S. attorney for New Jersey. Grace was set to succeed the state's interim U.S. attorney, Alina Habba, a former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump.

Just last week,a New York prosecutor was firedby the Justice Department the same day he had been appointed by federal judges to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York.

Veteran attorney Donald Kinsella — who had been appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York — told NBC News that he was fired after receiving an email from the White House stating that the "president directed that I be removed."

In both cases, federal judges appointed U.S. attorneys after a judge had ruled that the interim U.S. attorney appointed by Trump was serving in the role unlawfully.

Hundley has more than 30 years of experience litigating complex criminal and civil cases, having represented clients in state and federal courts across Virginia, Washington, D.C. and Maryland. He has successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and has been appointed by the Virginia Supreme Court to serve as a Council Member at Large to the Virginia State Bar.

A federal judge ripped into the Justice Department on Friday for failing to inform him of the applicability of a law intended to protect journalists from government searches and seizures when it asked him for permission to raid a Washington Post reporter's home earlier this year.

"How could you miss it? How could you think it doesn't apply?" Magistrate Judge William Porter asked a DOJ lawyer during a hearing in Alexandria, Virginia.

"I find it hard to be that in any way this law did not apply," Porter added later.

The judge said during the hearing that he had declined to approve the warrant for materials from reporter Hannah Natanson several other times.

"I find it hard to be that in any way this law did not apply," Porter added later.

Justice Department attorney Christian Dibblee argued that the decision was made by department officials several rungs above him, but that he understood the judge's "frustration."

Porter shot back: "That's minimizing it!"

"Ms. Natanson has been deprived of basically her life's work," Porter said during the hearing, echoing comments from her lawyer that she's been unable to continue reporting and gathering confidential sources following the raid.

The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 is intended to protect journalists and newsrooms from government searches and seizures of a reporter's work product materials unless the reporter is themself the subject of a criminal investigation or prosecution.

CNN has previously reported that the Post reporter, Natanson, is not under investigation. But her communications with a government contractor who was charged with illegally leaking classified information are what led prosecutors to ask Porter to approve a search warrant for her Virginia home.

Last month, federal agents arrived at Natanson's home and seized a phone, two computers and a Garmin watch were seized. After Natanson and the Post sued in an effort to get the devices back, Porter temporarily blocked investigators from examining them.

Advertisement

Dibblee and DOJ attorney Gordon Kromberg tried to tell Porter on Friday that the department didn't believe the law was applicable in this case, with Dibblee at one point saying it's not the kind of "adverse authority" that lawyers are typically required to raise with a court when making requests for such warrants.

"You don't think you have an obligation to say that?" Porter said at one point. "I'm a little frustrated with how the process went down."

The alleged leaker,Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, pleaded not guilty late last month to five counts of unlawfully transmitting national defense information to Natanson through an encrypted messaging application and a single count of unlawfully retaining the defense information.

Press freedom advocates have raised alarm bells over the non-disclosure of the law, decrying the decision as a significant assault on key protections for newsrooms.

"The government appears to have ignored a crucial press freedom guardrail in searching a journalist's home and did not alert the magistrate judge to the law's application in this case, let alone show how or if it had complied with the statute's considerable protections," Gabe Rottman, the vice president of policy for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said earlier this month.

Porter is weighing a request from Natanson and the Post for him to order the government to return the seized devices and data back to them or set up a process through which the massive volume of information can be reviewed and the materials that relate to Perez-Lugones' can be separated from information that is not relevant to his case.

He appeared sympathetic to the reporter's argument that the government seized much more than it needed during its raid last month, but noted that in today's digital world, it's difficult to easily separate material that is responsive to a search warrant from material that is not.

"What's the government's need for all that information?" he asked at one point.

Dibblee quickly conceded "there is more information that was received than what was pursuant to the warrant," drawing a scoffing laugh from the judge.

Porter didn't appear ready to issue an order requiring the Justice Department to turn over all the devices, instead suggesting that the court could set up a "filter team" that would look through the data and determine what fit within the parameters of the search warrant and what may need to be returned to Natanson or shielded from the government's eyes

He said he would rule in the coming weeks.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com

By Trevor Hunnicutt and Jarrett Renshaw

WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - For more than a year, Donald Trump has moved through Washington like a monarch, in a capital increasingly shaped by his power, threats and whims.

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court abruptly altered that trajectory. In striking down his ‌administration's signature economic policy, the justices delivered a rare and public rebuke that signaled the dominant Republican president had finally reached the limits of ‌his authority.

Trump's reaction was immediate and visceral.

Upon learning of the ruling, Trump told governors gathered at the White House that he was "seething" and had to do something about the courts, said Delaware Governor Matt Meyer, ​a Democrat who was in the room.

Later, in front of reporters, Trump tore into the justices who ruled against him - including two of his own nominees - calling them weak, a disgrace and an "embarrassment to their families." He scoffed at what he cast as the majority's tortured logic.

"For someone who never admits losing," said Chris Borick, a pollster and political science professor at Pennsylvania's Muhlenberg College, "this is a pretty significant loss."

TRUMP'S FAVORITE WORD

Few policies have defined Trump's second term in office more than his aggressive use of tariffs. To Trump, ‌a tariff is not just a tax imposed on goods ⁠when they cross the U.S. border, but "my favorite word" and "the most beautiful word in the dictionary," as he has repeatedly told supporters.

He has wielded the threat of tariffs as a cudgel to extract concessions on soybean purchases, win billions in foreign investment pledges, ⁠stem the flow of narcotics, wade into international conflicts, adjust prescription drug prices and boost favored U.S. industries.

The Republican-controlled Congress, despite its constitutional authority over taxation, mostly stood aside.

The conservative Supreme Court often enhanced Trump's power, granting him immunity for his actions in office and issuing emergency rulings that favored his policies.

Advertisement

But the court's 6-3 decision on Friday, authored by conservative Chief ​Justice ​John Roberts, punctured Trump's long-held assertion that he could impose sweeping tariffs in the name of ​U.S. economic security. The ruling injected fresh uncertainty into a political ‌landscape already shaped by volatile markets, uneasy foreign partners and looming midterm elections that could further curtail Trump's power.

"It is a blow to his expansive vision of emergency powers, which was the pillar for his entire economic agenda and more," said Julian E. Zelizer, presidential historian at Princeton University.

WOUNDED PRESIDENT LASHES OUT

Met with the biggest setback of his current term in office, an angry Trump responded characteristically: lashing out at those who dared to stand in his way, while still claiming victory.

Under theatrically dimmed lights in the White House press briefing room, Trump berated judges he had appointed. He suggested that their ruling had clarified his broad powers to use tariffs or cut ‌off trade with other countries entirely. And he quoted a dissenting Supreme Court opinion that said ​the decision might not substantially constrain a president's ability to order tariffs in the future.

"I can charge ​much more than I was charging," Trump concluded.

"It's a little more complicated," ​he said. "The process takes a little more time, but the end result is going to get us more money, and I think ‌it's going to be great."

Asked if he would ask Congress to ​give him the powers the Supreme Court said ​he did not have, Trump was defiant.

"No, I don't need to, it's already been approved," he said. "I mean, I would ask Congress and probably get it."

No president has used the law that was in dispute, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as expansively as Trump. And despite his bravado at Friday's ​press briefing, the alternative laws he could tap to impose ‌tariffs would be slower to implement, require more exhaustive justification and come with time limits.

"The presidency is definitely weaker" as a result of ​the ruling, said Saikrishna Prakash, a constitutional scholar at the University of Virginia School of Law. "He's weaker."

(Reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt and Jarrett Renshaw; Additional ​reporting by Andrea Shalal and Bo Erickson; Editing by Colleen Jenkins and Diane Craft)

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Military jets were launched to intercept five Russian aircraft that were flying in international airspace off Alaska's western coast, but military officials said Friday the Russian aircraft were not seen as provocative.

Alaska Russian Jets

The North American Aerospace Defense Command said it detected and tracked two Russian Tu-95s, two Su-35s and one A-50 operating near the Bering Strait on Thursday.

In response, NORAD launched two F-16s, two F-35s, one E-3 and four KC-135 refueling tankers to intercept, identify and escort the Russian aircraft until they departed the area, according to a release from the command.

"The Russian military aircraft remained in international airspace and did not enter American or Canadian sovereign airspace," according to the NORAD statement. It also noted this kind of activity "occurs regularly and is not seen as a threat."

Advertisement

The Russian aircraft were operating in an area near the Bering Strait, a narrow body of water about 50 miles (80 kilometers) wide separating the Pacific and Arctic oceans, called the Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zone.

Such zones begin where sovereign airspace ends. While it's international airspace, all aircraft are required to identify themselves when entering zones in the interest of national security, NORAD said.

The command used satellites, ground and airborne radars and aircraft to detect and track aircraft

NORAD is headquartered at Peterson Space Force Base, Colorado, but has its Alaska operations based at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage.