Category: Politics

Army veteran and national security expert Cait Conley has claimed the Democratic nomination in New York’s 17th Congressional District, setting up a high-stakes November showdown against Republican incumbent Mike Lawler, a two-term congressman widely regarded as one of the most at-risk House members in the upcoming midterm elections, according to projections from U.S. media outlets.

Lawler’s district covers New York City’s northern suburbs in Westchester County and extends into the Lower Hudson Valley. Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris carried the district by a slim margin in 2024, putting it squarely on Democrats’ target list as the party works to flip the three seats needed to regain control of the House of Representatives for the final two years of Donald Trump’s presidency.

Conley beat out Rockland County Legislator Beth Davidson and three additional Democratic challengers in Tuesday’s primary. She held a significant financial advantage heading in, outraising Davidson by over $1 million, reporting twice as much cash available, and leading in two recent polls.

Although the national political climate poses challenges for Republicans, Lawler has proven himself a capable competitor in difficult races. In 2022, he unseated Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, who led House Democrats’ campaign efforts, and in 2024 he turned back former Representative Mondaire Jones by more than six percentage points — even as Harris carried his district by 0.6 percentage points that same year.

Lawler had explored a run for governor this cycle before announcing last July that he would seek another congressional term instead, saying on Fox News that holding the House was a critical priority for Republicans.

On the fundraising front, Lawler holds a substantial edge. The incumbent has brought in $7.4 million — more than double Conley’s $3.3 million — and as of June 3 had $4.4 million cash on hand compared to Conley’s $941,000.

Conley’s biography includes graduation from West Point and combat deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan. After her military service, she went on to serve as the counterterrorism director on the White House National Security Council and contributed to election security efforts at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

She is part of a group of female military veterans seeking congressional seats who call themselves the “Hell Cats.” One member of the group, Navy veteran Rebecca Bennett, won her Democratic primary for a competitive New Jersey seat on June 2. The remaining two members are running in states where primaries have not yet taken place.

Meanwhile, New York Democrats are also working to protect as many as three of their own seats that could become competitive this fall. Representatives Tom Suozzi, Laura Gillen, and Josh Riley each hold battleground districts. Riley will face state Senator Peter Oberacker, Gillen will run against either Hempstead Town Tax Receiver Jeanine Driscoll or retired Air Force veteran Marvin Williams, and Suozzi’s opponent will be either former Assemblyman Mike LiPetri or personal injury attorney Gregory Hach.

Tuesday’s primary elections unfolded across four states, with New York drawing the most scrutiny as congressional races put the political clout of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani under the microscope.

While New York’s contests commanded national attention, voters in Maryland, South Carolina, and Utah also made their way to the polls to weigh in on their own competitive races.

The day’s events were documented in a photo gallery assembled by AP photo editors.

Voting wrapped up Tuesday in a high-profile Democratic primary in Manhattan, where Jack Schlossberg — the grandson of the late President John F. Kennedy and a first-time political candidate — squared off against a field of contenders that included two state legislators and a well-known former Republican, all competing for an open seat in Congress.

The winner of this competitive primary enters the November general election as a strong favorite to replace longtime Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, who is stepping down. Democrats account for roughly two-thirds of registered voters in the district.

The race drew considerable buzz, driven in part by Schlossberg’s celebrity status as a Kennedy family member with a knack for social media, and in part by the enormous amounts of money that poured in as artificial intelligence companies turned the contest into a proxy battle over tech regulation.

Schlossberg leaned into his family legacy while also pushing his own platform, describing his message as “progressive and aggressive” through social media posts that were widely shared — and sometimes unconventional.

“Supporters don’t just like me because I’m a Kennedy,” Schlossberg told The Associated Press earlier this year. “They like me because of my experience, my ideas, and they trust me because they see what’s going on with their very own eyes.”

Still, questions followed Schlossberg throughout the campaign about his thin professional background. The 33-year-old holds a combined law and business degree and had a brief stint at the State Department’s environmental office, along with writing political opinion pieces for Vogue. He maintained that his family’s wealth gave him freedom from the pressures of political fundraising.

The AI industry’s money flowed heavily into the race, largely in opposition to candidate Alex Bores, a state Assembly member and former tech engineer who had authored legislation that many in the tech sector found objectionable. However, some AI companies more open to regulation pushed back by backing Bores.

Voters in the district were flooded with campaign mailers and advertisements, particularly targeting Bores and fellow Assembly member Micah Lasher, a former aide to Rep. Nadler. Lasher ran on his deep experience in government, while Bores presented himself as a newer voice willing to take on powerful special interests.

“The battle lines, in this race in particular, are whether we can regulate AI at all,” Bores said during a CNN interview Tuesday evening.

Beyond the AI money fight, the race also featured dueling endorsements from Nadler and fellow Congress member Carolyn Maloney — whom Nadler had defeated in a 2022 primary after their neighboring districts were merged through redistricting. This time around, Maloney threw her support behind Bores, while Nadler backed Lasher.

Another notable contender was George Conway, a veteran attorney and former Republican who co-founded the anti-Trump group known as The Lincoln Project. Conway was previously married to Kellyanne Conway, who served as an adviser to Republican President Donald Trump, though George Conway has since distanced himself from both her and the former president.

A number of additional candidates also competed in the primary.

WASHINGTON — In a rare display of bipartisan cooperation, the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to pass a sweeping housing bill designed to bring down the cost of buying and renting a home across the country.

The 358-32 vote sends the measure to President Donald Trump, who is expected to put his signature on it Wednesday at the Capitol. The Senate had already approved the bill 85-5 on Monday.

The legislation takes aim at the nation’s housing affordability crisis on multiple fronts — cutting federal red tape, speeding up environmental reviews, accelerating construction timelines, and reining in corporate landlords by restricting their ability to buy single-family homes. Lawmakers from both parties described it as one of the most far-reaching attempts in decades to grow the housing supply and ease costs for everyday Americans.

Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California, one of the bill’s key negotiators, pointed to troubling statistics driving the push for action. She noted that the median age of a first-time homebuyer has climbed to 40, and that rents have jumped roughly 47% since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

“Our country must do better and today we will,” she said.

The final package was assembled from dozens of separate bills following months of negotiations — a striking contrast to the partisan gridlock that has defined much of the current congressional session.

House Financial Services Chairman French Hill, an Arkansas Republican who collaborated with Waters and Senate colleagues to craft the bill, called it the first time in years that Congress has united to make “measurable, accountable changes” to the country’s housing laws.

He said the bill will “help build more homes to meet that growing demand and keep the American dream within reach.”

Among its many provisions, the legislation would broaden access to financing, promote the development of non-traditional housing options such as modular homes, establish new protections for renters, and strengthen programs focused on reducing homelessness.

The bill would also direct funding to local governments that exceed the median rate of homebuilding, including through Community Development Block Grant dollars. It sets aside money to help communities convert abandoned infrastructure into housing and provides a framework for reforming outdated zoning rules that have long blocked larger housing developments.

Additionally, the legislation raises caps on the number of public housing units eligible for renovation financing and formally establishes a recovery program to help get funds to communities rebuilding after natural disasters.

One provision that did not make the final cut was a Senate measure that would have required investors to sell newly built homes within seven years of purchase.

Both parties have rallied around the bill as evidence they are tackling the affordability crisis head-on. The U.S. housing market has struggled since 2022, when mortgage rates began rising sharply from their pandemic-era lows. Sales of previously owned homes have been hovering near a 4-million annual pace since 2023 — well below the historical norm of 5.2 million per year. Sales hit a 30-year low last year and have remained weak in early 2025, falling in both January and February compared to the same period a year ago.

A report released by the Economic Report of the President in April identified a shortage of 10 million homes nationwide. Separately, a recent report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University found existing home sales at three-decade lows and rising inventory due to steep buying costs. “Cost burdens for both renters and owners continue to climb, while assistance remains profoundly underfunded,” that report stated.

Although the median U.S. monthly rent has been edging lower for nearly three years, it was still 17.2% above pre-pandemic levels as of May, according to data from Realtor.com.

The bill earned broad support across the housing industry, drawing backing from groups representing landlords and large property owners as well as organizations that advocate for tenants and low-income renters.

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., summed up the mood on the House floor ahead of the vote: “In this polarized and angry Congress, we are actually getting something done.”

WASHINGTON — Congress has given final approval to a sweeping bipartisan bill designed to tackle the nation’s ongoing affordable housing shortage, with the measure now on its way to President Donald Trump to be signed into law.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 358-32 in favor of the legislation on Tuesday, one day after the Senate approved it by an overwhelming 85-5 margin.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill of Arkansas, a Republican, spoke in favor of the bill during floor debate, stating that “America is facing a housing supply shortage that’s been years in the making.”

Hill added that the bill would “cut unnecessary barriers to new home construction” and update what he described as outdated banking regulations, making it easier for lower-income Americans to qualify for home loans.

Democratic Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut praised the rare show of cooperation across party lines, calling the bill’s passage “a remarkable thing” given how seldom major legislation clears the deeply divided Congress.

A new survey released Tuesday found that, for the first time since 2023, a majority of American consumers said they would rather purchase a home than rent or move in with family members — a sign of the pent-up demand facing the housing market.

Housing industry groups estimate there is a shortage of millions of affordable homes nationwide. That crunch has been driven by a combination of elevated mortgage rates, climbing home prices, and supply chain disruptions that have persisted over recent years.

The bill has gone through multiple rounds of revisions by House and Senate negotiators over the past year. Its passage gives both Republicans and Democrats a legislative win to highlight as they head into November congressional elections.

Concerns about the high cost of living rank among the top issues for voters in public opinion polls, with inflation rising noticeably during Trump’s second term in office.

Beyond easing construction barriers, the bill includes provisions to waive or accelerate environmental reviews for new home building projects. It would also place a limit on how many existing single-family homes large Wall Street investment firms are permitted to own.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate cast a historic vote Tuesday, backing legislation that would order President Donald Trump to bring American military action against Iran to a stop — the latest sign that some members of his own party are growing increasingly uncomfortable with his leadership.

Senators approved the war powers resolution by a 50-48 margin. The measure had already cleared the House of Representatives earlier this month, driven by rising unease — even within Trump’s own Republican Party — over a conflict that began on February 28 and has grown deeply unpopular.

This marks the first occasion in American history that both chambers of Congress have simultaneously passed a resolution ordering a president to pull U.S. forces out of an active conflict since the War Powers Resolution — more widely known as the War Powers Act — became law back in 1973.

Though the resolution is widely expected to be largely symbolic in its effect, it still represents a notable blow to Trump, who had until recently enjoyed nearly unanimous backing from Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The vote also comes at a particularly sensitive moment, as the administration is expected to soon ask Congress to approve tens of billions of dollars in funding to cover the costs of the war.

Republicans currently hold narrow majorities in both the Senate and the House, but a handful have begun breaking ranks with the president on select issues as November’s mid-term elections approach — elections that will decide whether the GOP keeps control of Congress.

Some Republicans have already pushed back on other Trump priorities, including his $1.8 billion “antiweaponization” fund intended to compensate political allies he claims were targeted by federal authorities, and they have also stalled a $70 billion bill aimed at funding his immigration enforcement efforts.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released the same day as the Senate vote found that only one in four Americans feel the war with Iran has been worth the price, and that most Americans are skeptical a ceasefire with Tehran will hold over time.

The Senate tally broke largely along party lines. Four Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats in favor of the resolution, while all but one Democrat voted yes. Two Republican senators were absent and did not cast votes.

Legal Questions Remain Unresolved

The Trump administration is currently engaged in efforts to negotiate a peace agreement with Iran. Congressional support for the resolution is expected to increase pressure on Trump not to restart military operations — something he has hinted he may do if peace talks break down.

Under the terms of the 1973 War Powers Act, a concurrent resolution passed by both chambers does not require the president’s signature. Congress designed such resolutions as a tool to end military engagements without needing White House approval.

However, legal experts caution that the matter is far from settled. No war powers resolution had ever previously passed both chambers, and a Supreme Court ruling from 1983 stated that such a measure must be sent to the president for signature or veto in order to carry legal weight.

The White House has taken the position that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional and therefore not binding on the executive branch.

A White House official said Tuesday that the Senate vote carries no real significance, arguing that because the resolution does not go to the president, it has no force of law — and pointing out that the measure only passed because two Republican senators were not present to vote.

The official also argued that the resolution is moot because U.S. forces were already removed from hostilities when a ceasefire took effect on April 7.

Experts believe the constitutional questions surrounding the War Powers Act will ultimately need to be resolved by the courts.

Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and senior editor of the legal publication Lawfare, offered this assessment: “The executive branch will likely ignore it on constitutional grounds, and it’s not clear who might have standing to sue to enforce it.”

Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, who introduced the resolution in the House, said he considers the measure legally binding and pledged to pursue every available legal avenue to compel the administration to comply with it.

Democrats also pointed to the U.S. Constitution’s language giving Congress — not the president — the authority to take the nation to war. “Congress has to own this responsibility,” said Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia in remarks on the Senate floor urging his colleagues to support the measure.

A Small But Meaningful Coalition

The resolution had also cleared the House with limited Republican support, passing 215-208 with four Republicans and all Democrats voting in favor.

The four Republican senators who voted for the measure were Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the lone Democrat to vote against it.

Republicans Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and David McCormick of Pennsylvania were absent and did not vote.

Democratic lawmakers have pledged to bring additional war powers measures to the floor, saying they intend to keep forcing Republicans to take public positions on the conflict.

Separately, under a 2015 law passed when then-President Barack Obama was negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran and other world powers, Congress retains the right to review and vote on any peace agreement with Tehran that touches on Iran’s nuclear program.

Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said Tuesday that he anticipates Congress will indeed review and vote on whatever peace deal is eventually reached with Iran.

California is preparing to take the Trump administration to court over its move to buy out and cancel an offshore wind energy project planned along the state’s central coast.

State officials announced Tuesday that they have sent a formal notice of intent to sue to the Department of the Interior. The legal challenge centers on the administration’s decision to purchase back the lease for Golden State Wind, a floating offshore wind project off California’s central coast.

Offshore wind is a cornerstone of California’s clean energy strategy. The state has set a goal of developing 25 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2045 — enough electricity to serve roughly 25 million homes and account for about 13% of the state’s total energy supply.

California Energy Commission Chair David Hochschild said those energy and climate goals are now under threat, and the state intends to fight back hard. He described the administration’s approach of repurchasing offshore wind leases as “a strategic mistake of colossal proportions,” calling it particularly alarming at a time when fossil fuel prices have been climbing due to the Iran war.

“Countries that thrive around the world are those that lean into innovation, into the energy sources of the future,” Hochschild said in a Tuesday interview. “And so to turn away from this, and turn back the clock, and really engage in what I consider to be a war on innovation, is really ill-considered. And I think it’s a decision that’s not just bad for California, it’s bad for the nation.”

President Donald Trump has championed increased fossil fuel production as a way to deliver affordable and reliable energy to Americans, and he has repeatedly expressed his opposition to wind power. After federal courts blocked his attempts to halt offshore wind development through executive orders, the Interior Department shifted to a new approach: buying back the leases directly.

In these buyback arrangements, companies receive reimbursements for their lease fees in exchange for redirecting that money into fossil fuel and geothermal energy projects. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said last week that “under President Trump, companies are shifting investment back toward dependable, secure energy infrastructure that can power our economy and lower utility costs.”

California currently has five federal offshore wind leases along its coastline. Two of those are being terminated through agreements with the Interior Department: Golden State Wind and a separate floating wind project developed by Chicago-based Invenergy. On Tuesday, the state also issued an administrative investigative subpoena to Invenergy, which last week accepted a $765 million agreement to walk away from its offshore wind leases.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a statement saying the state will not sit back while the Trump administration “illegally strikes deals to kill offshore wind projects and replace them with more windfalls for his fossil fuel friends.”

The total cost of all these lease buyback agreements has reached nearly $2.6 billion. The first deal, announced in March, involves French company TotalEnergies receiving close to $1 billion — essentially a full refund on two offshore wind leases off the coasts of North Carolina and New York — on the condition that the money be reinvested in fossil fuels. New York is leading a legal challenge to that agreement, and congressional Democrats are investigating it.

Golden State Wind and Bluepoint Wind both agreed in April to terminate their leases. Bluepoint Wind had been in the early stages of developing an offshore wind farm off the coasts of New Jersey and New York.

Golden State Wind is a joint venture between Ocean Winds and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Under the terms of its agreement, Golden State Wind can recoup approximately $120 million in lease fees, provided the same amount is invested in oil and gas assets, infrastructure, or projects along the Gulf Coast, according to the Interior Department. Michael Brown, CEO of Ocean Winds North America, said in April that the deal offered “clarity” for the company and its investors.

Hochschild and Bonta contend that the Interior Department illegally used federal taxpayer funds to pay Golden State Wind to abandon its offshore wind lease and invest an equivalent sum in out-of-state fossil fuel projects — moves they say provide no benefit to California’s energy economy.

The two officials also noted that California has invested more than $100 million over the past decade preparing its ports, transmission systems, and industries to support offshore wind development. They warned those investments could be wasted if the Trump administration successfully shuts down offshore wind in the state.

If the matter is not resolved, California intends to file its lawsuit within 60 days.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican senators who have found themselves at odds with President Donald Trump lately will get a chance to speak with him directly when he joins them for a party luncheon at the Capitol on Wednesday.

Ahead of that gathering, senators said Tuesday they are hoping the private meeting will be focused on bringing the party together rather than airing grievances. But the timing is complicated — Trump appears to have stepped back from much of the Senate’s legislative agenda as the November midterm elections approach, instead pushing a proof-of-citizenship voting bill that currently lacks the support needed to pass.

Earlier Tuesday, the President traveled to a Mack Trucks facility in Macungie, located in the suburbs of Allentown, Pennsylvania. The visit marked his first significant public appearance outside the nation’s capital since he signed an interim agreement bringing the Iran war to a close.

The Pennsylvania stop was seen as an effort to redirect the national conversation toward the U.S. economy, as Trump looks to move past the conflict and the spike in gasoline prices it triggered — all with the midterm elections drawing nearer.

Trump took a private tour of the facility before delivering remarks that observers noted carried the energy of a reelection rally from two years ago, while also highlighting what he described as accomplishments during his second term in office.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is stepping back from a sweeping plan to convert large warehouses into mass immigrant detention centers, abandoning a central piece of a $38-billion initiative that former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem championed to dramatically grow detention capacity this year.

The federal government, which faced a lawsuit from Michigan and a Detroit-area suburb, told a judge Monday that a warehouse it purchased in Romulus, Michigan, will be put up for sale. Similar plans are also falling apart in Social Circle, Georgia, and Socorro, a suburb of El Paso, Texas, according to local officials in those communities.

Those three cities are part of a group of 11 locations where the federal government collectively spent $1.074 billion purchasing warehouse properties.

The New York Times reported last week, citing internal documents it obtained, that federal immigration officials now intend to unload seven of those 11 warehouses — either by transferring them to other federal agencies or selling them on the open market.

The Department of Homeland Security did not directly confirm those reports, but released a statement saying the agency is “moving swiftly to utilize EXISTING detention space with our state and county partners.”

Claire Trickler-McNulty, a former ICE official who served under the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, had sharp words for the warehouse conversion idea, calling it “wildly foolhardy.”

Part of the backlash stemmed from how the purchases were handled. Noem’s team largely carried out the acquisitions away from public scrutiny, blindsiding many communities. In some cases, local leaders only found out about ICE’s intentions after the agency had already bought or leased space in their area.

After Noem was removed from her position, her successor, Markwayne Mullin, quickly put the brakes on any additional warehouse purchases.

Opposition came from multiple directions — some residents and officials objected on moral grounds to having an ICE detention facility in their neighborhoods, while others raised practical concerns about whether the facilities would strain local infrastructure like water and sewer systems.

Seven federal lawsuits were filed against the plans, and regulatory obstacles created additional headaches in other locations.

Financial questions also arose about how much the government paid. In one case, the agency paid double what a New Jersey warehouse was valued at in tax records. For the Social Circle, Georgia, property, the government paid nearly five times its assessed value. Those discrepancies triggered an internal audit.

Trickler-McNulty noted that while ICE does own a handful of facilities it inherited from its predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the agency has historically contracted out its detention needs rather than owning and operating large facilities itself.

“Facilities over 2,000 people just break down. It’s very hard to run a very big facility, to keep it staffed, to keep all of it moving,” she said.

Mullin, who took over and expanded his family’s plumbing business before serving Oklahoma in both the U.S. House and Senate, acknowledged during his confirmation hearing that there had been problems with the warehouse plan. He pointed out that most municipalities simply don’t have the water and sewer infrastructure to support facilities housing thousands of people.

Water supply challenges proved particularly severe at the Salt Lake City warehouse — the most expensive of the bunch at $145.4 million. A federal lawsuit over that property revealed that ICE officials told the city’s mayor that trucking water and sewage to and from the facility might be needed as a temporary fix.

According to the New York Times report, the Salt Lake City warehouse is among those slated to be handed off or sold. Others on the list include the Romulus facility, one in New Jersey, two in Georgia, and two in Pennsylvania.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said it would have been an “abomination” if the 249,000-square-foot Romulus warehouse had been converted into an immigrant detention center as originally planned when it was purchased for $34.7 million.

“The ICE warehouse proposal was every bit as ill-conceived as it was cruel and unnecessary, and I am relieved that this chapter is coming to a close,” Nessel said.

Social Circle, Georgia, announced last week that it received word from U.S. Rep. Mike Collins, a Republican, that the Department of Homeland Security has dropped its plans to build an ICE detention facility there.

In the El Paso region, acting ICE Director David Venturella visited the area earlier this month and informed local officials that the agency has revised its plans for three warehouses it purchased in nearby Socorro for $122 million, according to U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, who was present during the visit.

Escobar, a Democrat representing El Paso, said at a news conference that ICE is no longer planning to detain up to 8,500 immigrants at those facilities as originally envisioned. Instead, the property will be converted into an ICE campus that includes offices and training space, along with a smaller — though unspecified — number of detainees.

Despite some progress, many communities remain frustrated by a lack of communication from federal officials about what happens next.

In Pennsylvania, state and local officials said Tuesday they had not received any updated information from DHS regarding two warehouses purchased earlier this year. Both projects have been held up after the state denied permits, citing concerns that drinking water and sewer capacity would be insufficient for thousands of residents.

U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser, whose district covers both Pennsylvania warehouses, said he met with DHS personnel on Friday but that the agency had not yet decided whether to use the properties as detention centers or sell them.

In Oakwood, Georgia, the city manager said Tuesday he is reaching out to his congressional delegation trying to confirm rumors that a warehouse in his city will be sold. “I have not heard anything yet,” said B.R. White.

In Maryland, a judge has extended a halt on converting a large warehouse into an immigrant processing facility, while ICE continues to gather public comments about the environmental impact of the project. An announcement earlier this month provided additional details about the planned facility, including six secure outdoor recreation areas.

Patrick Dattilio, founder of Hagerstown Rapid Response — a group formed specifically to oppose housing ICE detainees in that warehouse — said there has been little communication beyond what has come out through the lawsuit. He said his group remains committed to preventing the facility from ever opening.

“It’s a big warehouse,” Dattilio said. “It’s not meant for people.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Trump and Vice President Vance are billing their interim agreement to end hostilities with Iran as a major windfall for American agriculture — but Iranian officials are pushing back hard on that claim, and sanctions experts say they’re left scratching their heads over the specifics.

A preliminary agreement reached last week would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas once flowed. The deal would allow Iran to resume selling its oil freely during a 60-day window while the two nations continue negotiating unresolved issues. The memorandum of understanding also included provisions to unfreeze Iranian assets.

The agreement has drawn criticism for not directly addressing the issues Trump cited when the U.S. went to war with Iran on Feb. 28 — including reining in Iran’s nuclear program, its missile capabilities, and its backing of militant organizations like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Firing back at his critics Tuesday on Truth Social, Trump insisted American farmers would benefit directly. He wrote that the U.S. Treasury Department would move Iranian assets “into escrow, controlled by the U.S.A., and will be used for the purchase of food and medical supplies, exclusively from the United States, including Corn, Wheat, and Soybeans from our great American farmers. These are things that are desperately needed by Iran.”

Vance, who discussed the proposal following high-level negotiations held in Switzerland, echoed Trump’s position that any frozen funds held outside Iran would go toward purchasing American crops.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, rejected that framing entirely, saying any agricultural purchases would be driven by “prices and quality” — not conditions set by Washington. “It is interesting that the philosophy and goal of the war, which was the destruction of the Iranian civilization and the collapse of Iran, has become enriching American farmers,” Baghaei said.

Iran’s ambassador in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, also pushed back against Vance’s suggestion that the U.S. and Qatar would have a say in how Iran spends its unfrozen money. “Iran is the only country who decides what to do with those assets,” he told reporters.

Joseph Glauber, a research fellow emeritus at the International Food Policy Research Institute, said it’s unlikely Iran would walk away from its existing food trade partners just because Washington demands it. He noted that Iran’s main agricultural suppliers include Brazil, India, Turkey, the European Union, Canada, Australia, and Argentina. Forcing Iran to buy exclusively from the U.S. would “create some hard feelings with some of our competitors,” he said.

Under previous sanctions frameworks, money that foreign nations paid Iran for imports — such as South Korean oil purchases or Iraqi payments for Iranian electricity — was typically locked in escrow accounts and only released with Treasury approval, and only for “non-sanctionable” goods like food and medicine.

On Monday, the U.S. Treasury approved the sale of Iranian oil, petrochemicals, and petroleum products through Aug. 21. The announcement made no mention of escrow accounts.

Richard Goldberg of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who worked to build diplomatic pressure on Iran during the first Trump administration, posted on X that he would welcome “a clarification that Iran is actually restricted to only buying U.S. agricultural products.”

Richard Nephew, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, said the agreement’s actual implications for releasing restricted Iranian assets remain unclear. Nephew, who helped construct Iran sanctions during the Obama and Biden administrations, said via email that the U.S. could attempt to direct the funds: “Well, we can try! All you really need to do is to tell a foreign bank that they can move the money but only to a U.S. bank to buy soybeans or whatever.”

He noted, however, that foreign banks aren’t required to comply — and if they refuse, the U.S. could respond with additional sanctions. Still, Nephew said such an approach is unusual, “in part because we don’t usually like to give the impression that we treat national security issues as a cash grab.”

A group of 17 states, led by Nebraska, along with a national trade association representing wholesalers and distributors, have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block California from enforcing a tough new law aimed at reducing plastic packaging waste.

The suit was filed Monday in federal court and targets California’s recently finalized rules, which would gradually require businesses to cut back on single-use plastics and ensure that all packaging is either recyclable or compostable. The plaintiffs described the regulations as “onerous mandates” that would lead to significant price hikes on everyday necessities — costs they say would ultimately be passed along to consumers.

Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who spearheaded the coalition, criticized California’s reach in a news release. “Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country. If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities,” he said.

The law at the center of the dispute — the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act — was signed into law in 2022. According to the lawsuit, it has an extraordinarily broad reach: “Virtually every product packaged or shipped in plastic containers, as well as a significant number of other types of packaging materials that merely incorporate plastics, fall into the Act’s remarkable sweep.”

The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, which represents businesses that import and distribute goods in California, is also a plaintiff in the case. The group’s president and CEO, Eric Hoplin, argued that California is overstepping its authority. “California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Hoplin said. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”

The lawsuit contends the law runs afoul of both the U.S. Constitution and California’s own constitution. The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the law invalid and unenforceable and to stop it from being put into effect.

Named as defendants in the suit are Zoe Heller, the director of California’s recycling agency CalRecycle, and the Circular Action Alliance, a nonprofit organization involved in carrying out the law.

A CalRecycle spokesperson, Melanie Turner, said in an emailed statement that the agency does not comment on active litigation and that it remains focused on moving forward with the law’s implementation.

The Circular Action Alliance said it is aware of the lawsuit and is keeping a close watch on how things develop, while continuing its work to achieve the law’s “ambitious goals.”

California officials have defended the law, saying it shifts the responsibility for managing single-use plastic and packaging waste away from taxpayers and local governments and onto the companies that produce it. Environmental Protection Secretary Yana Garcia said in a statement issued in May: “California is shifting the responsibility of managing single-use plastic and packaging onto the producers. New packaging reforms lower waste costs for communities and decrease garbage and pollution across the state. This approach pushes producers to innovate and design packaging that truly supports a circular economy.”

Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit are 16 other states whose attorneys general are Republican: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

Notably, environmental advocates have also taken legal action over the same law, but from the opposite direction. A coalition that included the Natural Resources Defense Council recently filed its own complaint, arguing that the final regulations were “weakened” versions of what the “landmark” law was intended to achieve.

WASHINGTON — Republican senators who have found themselves at odds with President Donald Trump in recent weeks will get the opportunity to address those tensions directly when he joins them for a party luncheon at the Capitol on Wednesday.

Ahead of the meeting, senators expressed hope Tuesday that the closed-door gathering would emphasize party unity rather than highlight divisions. The timing is notable, however, as Trump appears to have shifted his focus away from much of the Senate’s agenda with midterm elections approaching — instead championing his proof-of-citizenship voting bill, which currently does not have enough votes to clear the chamber.

Over the past month, tensions have mounted on multiple fronts. Trump abruptly blocked Senate Republicans from confirming one of his own nominees, asked them to help fund portions of a White House ballroom renovation project despite widespread opposition, and put them in the position of defending his Iran military action while many quietly questioned its strategy and ultimate goal.

Trump also contributed to erosion of his own Senate support by endorsing primary challengers against two Republican incumbents who had previously been reliable backers of his agenda — Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy. Both lost their primary races and have since become more openly critical of the president.

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration can move forward with its expanded program of rapid deportations of undocumented immigrants anywhere in the United States — not just in border areas.

A split three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down a lower court order that had temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s broader use of expedited removal. The decision marks a significant win for the Republican administration, which considers the expanded deportation tool central to its mass removal strategy.

Expedited removal is a process that allows the government to deport migrants quickly, without giving them the opportunity to appear before an immigration judge. Historically, it had only been used against migrants arriving by sea or those apprehended at or close to the border shortly after entering the country.

In January, Trump signed an order extending expedited removal to undocumented immigrants living anywhere across the U.S. Following that change, immigration agents began detaining migrants at courthouses where they had shown up for immigration proceedings, then removing them from the country within just a few days.

Civil liberties groups pushed back hard against the ruling. “The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” said Anand Balakrishnan, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. Balakrishnan, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs before the appellate panel, added that the decision “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”

DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, writing for the majority, concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the expanded program violated due process rights. In his opinion, Walker noted that immigrants were given notice of removal proceedings and had an opportunity to respond.

Walker and fellow majority judge Neomi Rao were both appointed to the bench by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Walker also addressed whether immigration officers were required to inform migrants that they could challenge expedited removal by proving they had lived in the United States for more than two years. He said no such requirement exists. “The constitutional requirement is notice of the action the government is taking and the grounds for it, plus an opportunity to respond,” Walker wrote, adding that the plaintiffs’ “contrary reasoning would require immigration officers to provide what amounts to legal advice.”

The two-judge majority vacated an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, who had placed the expanded deportation program on hold. Cobb, appointed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, had ruled in August that the administration failed to put in place adequate safeguards to prevent migrants from being wrongly deported under the expedited process.

Cobb had found that the plaintiffs presented “substantial evidence” that the expedited removal process carried a high risk of mistakes when applied on a broader scale. Her ruling referenced cases of individuals who had lived in the U.S. for well beyond two years but were still subjected to expedited removal orders.

Walker acknowledged in his opinion that such errors had occurred, but attributed them to “individual officers’ failure to follow the law — not defects in the written directives under review or the procedures they incorporate.”

The Trump administration has maintained that its expanded expedited removal program includes built-in protections against arbitrary deportations. In an October court filing, Justice Department attorneys described Cobb’s ruling as an “egregious error” that was stripping the administration of an “essential tool to combat the unprecedented surge of illegal immigration over the past few years” and its ability to efficiently deport potentially millions of people.

WASHINGTON — In a notable break from party leadership, the Republican-majority U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to pass legislation aimed at halting American military operations against Iran. However, the practical impact of the measure remains uncertain as President Donald Trump’s administration continues working toward a peace deal with the Islamic republic.

Senators approved the concurrent resolution by a 50-48 margin. The measure had already cleared the House of Representatives earlier this month, and the vote reflects mounting unease — even among some of Trump’s fellow Republicans — over a conflict that has grown increasingly unpopular since it began on February 28.

The vote fell mostly along party lines. Four Republicans crossed the aisle to vote in favor, joining nearly all Democrats in support. One Democrat voted against the resolution, and two Republicans were absent from the vote entirely.

The resolution instructs President Trump to withdraw U.S. armed forces from hostilities involving Iran. Despite its passage, the measure is widely expected to be little more than a symbolic gesture.

Under the terms of the 1973 War Powers Act, this type of concurrent resolution does not go to the White House for the president’s signature. The White House has already declared the legislation unconstitutional and, therefore, not binding on the administration.

Legal scholars say the question of whether the measure has any real teeth is far from settled and will likely end up before the courts. Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and senior editor of the legal publication Lawfare, explained the challenge ahead: “The executive branch will likely ignore it on constitutional grounds, and it’s not clear who might have standing to sue to enforce it.”

The Trump administration’s efforts to obtain detailed voter data from states have hit another legal wall, this time in Maryland.

U.S. District Court Judge Stephanie Gallagher last week threw out a Justice Department lawsuit that had sought access to Maryland’s voter registration records. Gallagher, who was appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump during his first term, wrote that she “joins every court to have addressed this issue” in concluding that the unredacted voter registration file “is not a record or paper that a state must produce to the United States.”

Thursday’s dismissal in Maryland makes nine states where the Justice Department has now lost similar legal battles. The department has filed lawsuits seeking detailed voter data — which includes dates of birth, home addresses, driver’s license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers — in 30 states and the District of Columbia.

Beyond Maryland, courts have also rejected the Justice Department’s attempts in Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. In Georgia, a judge dismissed a similar lawsuit because it was filed in the wrong city, leading the government to refile the case in a different location.

In the Maryland case, the Justice Department argued that an opinion from its own legal counsel’s office gave it the right to access the voter records under federal civil rights law. Judge Gallagher was not convinced, writing: “The Court will not interpret the (Civil Rights Act) contrary to its text simply because an office of the party advancing that interpretation has adopted it.”

Federal officials have argued they need the voter data to verify that states are following federal laws governing voter registration list maintenance, even though states already have their own detailed procedures in place. In the Rhode Island case, a Justice Department attorney acknowledged the department wanted the unredacted voter roll information so it could be shared with the Department of Homeland Security to verify citizenship status.

Earlier this week, a separate federal judge ruled that the Homeland Security program used to check citizenship — known as SAVE — violated federal privacy laws and was incorrectly flagging eligible voters as noncitizens. That judge ordered the program to stop being used.

Both Democratic and some Republican officials have pushed back against the Justice Department’s demands for detailed voter information, arguing the requests run afoul of state and federal privacy protections.

However, at least 13 states have either already turned over or committed to turning over their voter registration lists to the department, according to the Brennan Center for Justice and Associated Press reporting. Those states are Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

Tuesday marked the latest round of primary elections across four states — Maryland, New York, South Carolina, and Utah — as voters began selecting the nominees who will compete in November’s midterm elections.

The November midterms will decide which party controls both chambers of Congress, along with dozens of governorships and other state and local offices. Primary elections are being held throughout the spring and summer in all 50 states to determine who will appear on the general election ballot.

In Maryland, all eight congressional districts are holding contested primaries. The state typically leans left — only one of its districts is currently represented by a Republican — meaning primary winners often go on to win the general election. Gov. Wes Moore is seeking the Democratic nomination for a second term.

In New York, Mayor Zohran Mamdani has been working to shape the city’s congressional delegation through a series of endorsements, including in Districts 7, 10, and 13. In District 12, several Democrats are competing for the party’s nomination, among them Trump critic George Conway and Kennedy family member Jack Schlossberg.

In South Carolina, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and state Attorney General Alan Wilson are squaring off in a Republican runoff for the gubernatorial nomination. President Donald Trump, who had initially endorsed Evette earlier this month, said Friday that either candidate would make a good choice.

In Utah, voters are selecting congressional nominees under a newly drawn district map that created a more Democratic-friendly seat centered in Salt Lake City.

Here is the latest from Tuesday’s elections:

The newly redrawn Salt Lake City district — the result of a lengthy court battle over previous congressional boundaries — could prove critical for Democrats, who need to pick up only a handful of U.S. House seats in November to flip control of the narrowly divided chamber.

In the Democratic primary for that seat, former U.S. Rep. Ben McAdams, considered a moderate, is running against three candidates who are positioned further to his left. Progressive voters could divide their support among those challengers, potentially clearing the way for McAdams to return to Washington — or they could unite behind state Sen. Nate Blouin, Liban Mohamed, or Michael Farrell.

McAdams’ path to Congress has evolved since his first run in 2018, when he successfully convinced voters he was a sensible moderate capable of representing a swing district, defeating the Republican incumbent by a narrow margin. This time around, running in a heavily Democratic district, McAdams has pledged support for abortion rights and describes himself as only “moderate in tone” — a shift from his earlier self-described anti-abortion stance. His progressive opponents argue he is too conservative for the new district, a claim McAdams disputes, pointing to his record.

Republican U.S. Rep. Celeste Maloy is seeking reelection in a district that looks very different from the one that first sent her to Congress three years ago. She faces former state lawmaker Phil Lyman, who is running to her political right, in a redrawn district covering most of southern and eastern Utah. Maloy was first elected in a 2023 special election and won a full term in 2024. Lyman, who promoted false claims of fraud following the 2020 presidential election, is best known for organizing an illegal ATV ride to protest a federal land decision. A jury convicted him on misdemeanor charges, but Trump pardoned him in December 2020.

In New York, Mayor Mamdani made an appearance Tuesday morning outside a polling location on the Lower East Side alongside congressional candidate Brad Lander, a fellow Democrat. Mamdani described candidacies like Lander’s as “a referendum on whether the kind of leadership we have is the one that is serving the people of this city.”

“It’s not just a question of electing more Democrats. It’s a question of electing better Democrats,” the mayor said. He stressed the importance of putting “working people back at the heart of our politics” and championing freedom from fear and freedom of worship. “It’s time to bring some of those notions back so that working people can look at this party and see themselves, see their struggles, see their focuses,” Mamdani added.

The polling site appeared lightly attended, with voters trickling out every few minutes. One man leaving the building grumbled that the election had forced the cancellation of a lunch program for senior citizens. After the mayor departed, Lander recorded a video urging people to vote and reach out to friends. “We’re going to be calling people, knocking on doors, texting people all day long,” he said.

In New York’s 10th District, Rep. Dan Goldman — a former federal prosecutor who served as lead counsel during Trump’s first impeachment — is running for a third term in the heavily Democratic district covering parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn. He faces former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who has the backing of both Mayor Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Lander was acquitted earlier this month on charges stemming from a protest inside a building that houses an immigration court and has vowed to push back against the Trump administration, promising to “fight, not fold.”

A separate development involving Goldman emerged Monday when the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division announced an investigation into a Brooklyn coffee shop that said it would refuse service to the congressman over his support for Israel. In a since-deleted Instagram post, Poetica Coffee shared an image of Goldman in their Williamsburg location and wrote, in part: “We don’t serve racists, fascists, homophobes, genocide enablers or anyone in between. Too bad we didn’t recognize you right away, or we would have turned you away.” Goldman responded that he had purchased coffee from a barista who allowed his daughter to use the restroom and “could not have been nicer.” The top civil rights prosecutor at the Justice Department said on X that the coffee shop could face an enforcement action for discrimination. Goldman told CNN he was saddened by the post but did not believe it warranted a federal investigation. The coffee shop did not respond to requests for comment.

In New York’s 12th District, eight Democrats are running to replace retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler in one of Manhattan’s wealthiest House districts. Four candidates have dominated the race. Jack Schlossberg, a 33-year-old Kennedy family heir, and George Conway, a former Republican lawyer turned prominent Trump critic, represent a newer social media-driven style of campaigning. The two front-runners are Assemblymember Micah Lasher — a childhood magician turned political insider endorsed by Nadler himself — and Assemblymember Alex Bores, a former computer engineer whose artificial intelligence regulation bill made him the target of more than $7 million in ads from AI industry supporters. Bores has turned the spending against him into a rallying point, attracting other donors to counter the effort and positioning himself as a national symbol of resistance to big money in politics.

Further north in New York, Anthony Constantino — a Trump-backed “Make America Great Again” supporter and head of the custom sticker company Sticker Mule — is facing off against conservative state lawmaker Robert Smullen in a Republican primary. Constantino is known for his public overtures to the president, including placing a large “Vote for Trump” sign on top of one of his company’s buildings. Smullen, a former U.S. Marine Corps colonel and current state Assembly member, has broad support from state Republicans and presents himself as a steady, experienced choice for the House.

Back in Maryland, Republican voters are choosing a candidate they hope can unseat first-term Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, who has emerged as a rising figure in the Democratic Party. The GOP field ranges from ultra-moderate to staunchly conservative. Among the most closely watched contenders is Dan Cox, an attorney and former state delegate who ran unsuccessfully for governor four years ago. Cox has a photo of himself with Trump on his law firm’s website and has pledged to cut taxes and expand housing affordability programs if elected.

At one Maryland polling location at Bowie High School’s 9th Grade Center, turnout was light under overcast skies. Rodrick Greensword, 58, and his wife Natasha Greensword, 45, both voted for incumbent Gov. Moore in the Democratic gubernatorial primary and for Maryland State Delegate Adrian Boafo to be the Democratic nominee to fill the seat being vacated by Rep. Steny Hoyer. “We know the governor is governed by the pillars on which his culture is built,” Natasha said, adding that he will work for the people and make moral and humane choices. She said Boafo appeared to share the same values as Moore and Hoyer, and that Hoyer’s endorsement of Boafo also carried weight with her.

In Maryland’s most crowded primary, 24 candidates are on the Democratic ballot to succeed Rep. Hoyer. Among them is Harry Dunn, a former police officer who defended the U.S. Capitol during the January 6, 2021 riot. Dunn became an advocate for democratic institutions in the aftermath of that day. His campaign platform includes protecting democracy and holding Trump and his allies accountable for what he describes as misinformation and violence.

In South Carolina, Alan Wilson has served as state attorney general since 2011, building relationships with law enforcement officials across the state over more than a decade. Many of those officials endorsed his gubernatorial campaign. Since advancing to the runoff, Wilson has also received endorsements from three fellow Republicans who did not make it to the final round: state Sen. Josh Kimbrell and U.S. Reps. Ralph Norman and Nancy Mace. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas also endorsed Wilson, calling him “a proven conservative fighter who has spent years defending the Constitution.” Cruz traveled to South Carolina on Monday to appear at three campaign events with Wilson.

The South Carolina primary season was marked by months of sharp attacks between candidates competing for a rare open governor’s seat. Wilson acknowledged the tension but said the candidates’ relationship improved the more they encountered each other in person. “It’s easy to say things about people on social media, but when you start talking to them backstage, at forums and debates and things like that, you have conversations, you start to see a human being, not an avatar on a social media app,” he said. Wilson noted that he regularly checked in on Rep. Mace after her father died in April. After finishing last in the June 9 primary, Mace quickly endorsed Wilson, and Wilson said the two had “buried the hatchet.”

When the runoff was set, Lt. Gov. Evette wasted no time going on offense, calling Wilson a “career politician … who won’t take a stand and who does the political thing and not the right thing.” The crowd responded to Wilson’s name with boos. Wilson, for his part, did not mention Evette by name in his remarks and instead said he welcomed support from voters who had backed other candidates in the earlier primary.

After voting in Lexington on Tuesday, Wilson said it might take “a couple of weeks” for candidates on both sides to shake off the tension from a grueling year-long primary season. But he expressed confidence that “the Republican party’s going to coalesce around the candidate” ultimately nominated.

On the Democratic side in South Carolina, state Rep. Jermaine Johnson won his party’s gubernatorial nomination outright, defeating two other candidates. Charleston physician Annie Andrews also secured the Democratic nomination to challenge the incumbent U.S. senator. Democrats face a steep climb in the state — in the last governor’s race, the Republican incumbent won by nearly 18 percentage points, and Democrats have not won a gubernatorial race in South Carolina since 1998. No Democrat has won a U.S. Senate seat in the state in decades either.

ATLANTA — Georgia will continue using its controversial QR code vote-counting system during this fall’s midterm elections after state lawmakers approved legislation Tuesday that delays any changes to the system until 2028.

Both chambers of the Georgia Legislature voted on the measure, which also scaled back an earlier proposal that would have required hand recounts of ballots in certain contests. Leaders in the Republican-controlled Legislature said the plan to postpone changes to the voting equipment had the backing of Republican Governor Brian Kemp.

Kemp had called a special legislative session partly to deal with a July 1 deadline that had been set to eliminate the use of QR codes in the official vote-counting process. Lawmakers had previously passed a law establishing that deadline two years ago, but never managed to identify a replacement vote-tabulation method.

Some voting rights advocates had actually encouraged lawmakers to hold off on any changes to the QR code system, arguing there was not enough time before the midterms to roll out something new without risking confusion at polling locations. Georgia is considered a key political battleground state, with major statewide races for U.S. Senate and governor on the ballot this fall.

Last week, legislators appeared to have struck a deal on a bill to extend the QR code deadline, but Senate Republicans added an amendment over the weekend calling for a complete hand recount of the top two races on every ballot. That addition sparked strong pushback from Democrats.

The version of the bill that ultimately passed Tuesday narrowed the hand recount requirement to eight statewide offices, including governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and secretary of state. However, those hand counts would only be triggered when the winning margin is within half a percentage point, and only for races appearing as the first or second contest on a ballot. Races for U.S. Senate and U.S. House seats would not fall under the hand recount rules.

Democrats opposed including any hand recount provision in the bill. Studies have indicated that counting ballots by hand is more error-prone, more expensive, and tends to slow down the release of results. Still, the idea has gained momentum among Republican lawmakers in several states as former President Donald Trump continues to make unsubstantiated claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

Democratic state Rep. Debra Bazemore noted that Georgia already has election procedures in place that include audits and recount provisions in applicable situations.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate is gearing up for its tenth attempt to pass a war powers resolution that would put the brakes on American military involvement in Iran, as lawmakers keep a close eye on President Donald Trump’s push to wrap up a conflict his administration started without congressional approval — and now needs Congress to pay for.

Tuesday’s vote is not expected to produce a dramatically different result from the nine that came before it, all of which fell short. Still, a growing number of Republican members in both chambers have begun speaking out against both the war itself and the deal Trump reached with Iran to bring the fighting to a close. Democrats are pushing Republicans to join them in challenging the administration’s actions.

“Why is this vote different?” asked Sen. Tim Kaine, the Virginia Democrat who has spearheaded his party’s efforts on the issue.

Kaine argued that the current pause in hostilities — while Trump’s team works to solidify a fragile ceasefire — is exactly the right moment for Congress to step back and consider “what should the next chapter be.”

The vote is also happening as the Pentagon is asking Congress for roughly $80 billion, primarily to restock weapons and supplies used during the Iran conflict.

President Trump is expected to head to Capitol Hill this week to meet with Republican senators, while Vice President JD Vance has been traveling abroad to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program — one of the key reasons the administration cited for going to war in the first place.

According to one Republican senator who was granted anonymity to speak about internal discussions, Trump is not happy with GOP members who have criticized the deal he made with Iran.

The specifics of the Iran agreement are laid out in a Memorandum of Understanding that Trump signed last week, which kicks off a 60-day window for both sides to hammer out a broader deal aimed at ending Iran’s nuclear program.

A major sticking point for Republicans has been a $300 billion fund included in the agreement to help Iran rebuild — a figure far larger than the $1.7 billion that then-President Barack Obama returned to Iran as part of his administration’s 2015 nuclear deal.

“I believe President Trump is getting very poor advice on Iran,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said last week on his podcast after the deal became public.

Senate Democrats have been pushing for these votes almost continuously since the United States and Israel launched missile strikes against Iran on Feb. 28. Nearly every week Congress has been in session, Senate Democrats have brought forward war powers resolutions, but they have repeatedly come up short of the majority needed to pass in the closely divided chamber, where Republicans hold the majority.

Earlier this month, the House passed its own version of the resolution, with four Republicans crossing the aisle to vote alongside all Democrats — despite opposition from House Speaker Mike Johnson and the broader GOP leadership.

It is that House-passed resolution the Senate will take up Tuesday. While war powers resolutions don’t go to the president for his signature and don’t carry the weight of law, a successful vote would send a strong symbolic message from Congress and serve as a rebuke of the administration’s military decisions.

In previous votes, as many as four Republican senators have supported the war powers resolutions — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, has typically voted against the resolutions.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is also on Capitol Hill this week, requesting approximately $80 billion in supplemental funding to replenish military stockpiles following the Iran war — a request drawing scrutiny at a time when many Americans are struggling with high gas prices and rising costs of living.

Early Pentagon estimates put the cost of the war at $11.3 billion in just its first week, while outside experts have placed the total price tag at close to $100 billion.

The Defense Department’s funding request is part of a larger military spending push the White House is pursuing this year. The Trump administration is seeking $1.5 trillion in defense funding — a 50% increase — including $350 billion it wants included in a budget reconciliation package. Johnson and GOP leaders are working to pass that package without Democratic support, similar to how they pushed through Trump’s major tax cuts bill last year.

That 2025 tax cuts package also included a significant boost of around $175 billion for the military.

A new nationwide poll reveals that most Americans are skeptical about the value of President Donald Trump’s war with Iran, and a majority doubt that the recently signed peace agreement will bring lasting stability.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, which wrapped up on Monday after five days of data collection, found that only 24% of Americans believe the conflict with Iran was worth what it cost the country. Half of those surveyed said it was not worth it, and the remaining respondents said they were unsure.

The war also appears to be dragging down Trump’s standing with the public. His approval rating has dipped to 34%, tying the lowest point of his current term, which was previously recorded in an April survey.

When it comes to America’s global standing, just 23% of respondents — including only half of Republicans — believe the United States is now in a stronger position relative to Iran than it was before the fighting began. About 35% said the U.S. is actually in a weaker position, while the rest either weren’t sure or felt the situation was roughly unchanged.

Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian put their names to a preliminary agreement on June 17. The deal is designed to reopen oil and gas shipping routes that were frozen during the conflict and to ease U.S.-led economic pressure on Iran.

While the agreement has helped push global crude oil prices down, most Americans are still paying significantly more at the gas pump than they were before February 28, when U.S.-Israeli strikes launched the war. Iran struck back against those initial attacks, temporarily shutting down roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil trade and causing damage to energy infrastructure belonging to U.S. allies in the region.

Doubts about the durability of the peace deal are widespread. Some 63% of Americans said they consider it unlikely that the agreement will lead to a lasting peace between the two nations. That skepticism cuts across party lines — about half of Republicans and eight in ten Democrats said they don’t expect the deal to hold. Only 18% of Americans overall — including 34% of Republicans and just 10% of Democrats — believe lasting peace is a realistic outcome.

Trump entered his second term having campaigned on promises to bring down inflation and steer the country away from expensive foreign conflicts. He has long built his public image around his history as a businessman and television personality known for making deals.

His approval rating on economic issues, specifically the cost of living, stands at just 22% — near the lowest of his presidency and below the rating his Democratic predecessor held at the close of his time in office.

Trump began this term with a 47% approval rating, but his numbers have eroded amid persistent inflation and controversy surrounding his immigration enforcement efforts, which have included deadly clashes involving pro-immigration activists.

The decline in his popularity could create headaches for his Republican allies as they work to hold onto their congressional majorities in the November 3 midterm elections.

On immigration specifically, just 37% of Americans said they approve of how Trump has handled the issue — the lowest mark of his term and a drop from 40% in the previous Reuters/Ipsos survey.

The poll surveyed 1,262 adults across the United States and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that six people have been taken into custody for allegedly damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, a site that has become the center of growing controversy surrounding his administration’s costly and troubled renovation project.

In a post on social media, Trump claimed — without providing supporting evidence — that a “350 foot gash” had been made in the pool’s paint. The announcement comes as the administration faces a self-imposed deadline to address the failed renovation before the country’s 250th birthday celebration scheduled for next week.

Trump also said seven additional individuals were cited for causing damage to the pool. “It was purposefully and criminally done, and somebody had to work very hard, probably in the dark of night, to create such a condition,” Trump wrote in his post.

Neither the Park Police nor the Interior Department responded to media requests for comment on Trump’s claims.

The Associated Press independently confirmed only one arrest — a man who touched the already-deteriorating paint while federal crews work to address an algae problem in the water. The liner was installed as part of the more than $14 million project to restore the century-old pool, which included applying a new bottom coating in a color Trump personally chose and has called “American flag blue.”

Trump indicated that “some of the water” would be drained from the pool “either immediately before or after the Fourth of July, to do the permanent repair.” His post did not clarify the extent, timeline, or cost of that permanent fix.

National Guard troops and U.S. Park Police have been stationed around the pool’s perimeter after Trump insisted that vandals were to blame for the liner damage.

Trump originally promoted the renovation as an effort to clean up, beautify, and strengthen an iconic American landmark that he said had been allowed to fall into neglect and disrepair by previous administrations. He promised that the newly applied “American flag blue” coating — which he personally selected — would transform the pool into a sparkling centerpiece along the National Mall.

However, within weeks of Trump declaring the project complete ahead of Independence Day, the pool was overtaken by a bright green algae bloom that obscured the new coating. A section of liner measuring roughly 4 square feet was spotted partially floating in the pool last Friday. The Associated Press then observed additional pieces of liner in the water the following Monday.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department sent subpoenas to reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal demanding they appear before a grand jury — then pulled those subpoenas back, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

The Washington Post confirmed that one of its reporters was served a subpoena by the Trump administration as part of a wide-reaching crackdown on media leaks. That crackdown had already made headlines in January when FBI agents searched the home of a Washington Post reporter and took her electronic devices — an extraordinary and rarely used tactic. Reporters at The Wall Street Journal also received grand jury subpoenas, sources said, a move critics described as a direct threat to press freedom.

The reason the government chose to pull the subpoenas remains unclear, as does the specific news coverage the subpoenas were tied to. The withdrawal was first reported by The Washington Post on Tuesday and later confirmed by people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named because the law enforcement action was not public.

Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray sent a staff email, obtained by The Associated Press, revealing that the subpoena had targeted Ellen Nakashima, a well-known national security reporter who has covered topics including the Iran war and deadly U.S. military boat strikes in the Caribbean Sea.

A newspaper spokesperson responded with a firm statement: “The unwarranted subpoena of our reporter Ellen Nakashima – a clear violation of constitutionally guaranteed press freedom – was another sign of the government seeking to compel journalists to become instruments of its investigations. We will continue to stand fully behind the journalism of The Washington Post and fight all efforts by any administration that violate our First Amendment rights.”

A spokesperson for The Wall Street Journal did not reply to a request for comment sent Tuesday. The Justice Department also did not immediately respond to an email seeking a statement.

Mark Schoeff Jr., a reporter at CQ Roll Call and president of the National Press Club, described the effort to force reporters into grand jury testimony as “one of the most aggressive actions against a free and independent press in recent memory.”

“Reporters were one step away from being forced to participate in a criminal investigation because they were doing their jobs. That should alarm every American who values a free press,” Schoeff said in a written statement.

The Justice Department has long maintained internal guidelines on how it handles news media leaks, revising those policies over time. While the department has occasionally obtained phone records from individual journalists across different administrations to identify sources for national security stories, compelling a reporter to personally testify before a grand jury is extremely uncommon.

In April, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi reversed a policy from the previous Democratic administration that had shielded journalists from having their phone records secretly obtained during leak investigations — a practice long opposed by news organizations and press freedom advocates.

The reversal restored prosecutors’ ability to use subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants to pursue government employees who make unauthorized disclosures to the press. A memo issued alongside the reversal stated that members of the media are “presumptively entitled to advance notice” of such investigative steps, that subpoenas must be “narrowly drawn,” and that search warrants must include safeguards limiting intrusion into materials related to newsgathering.

WASHINGTON — The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration Tuesday in a significant immigration case examining how much power the federal government holds over lawful permanent residents — commonly known as green card holders — who are accused of criminal activity.

At the heart of the 6-3 decision is a 2012 action by an immigration officer who placed Muk Choi Lau on immigration parole when he arrived back in the country following a brief visit to China. The officer took that step because Lau had faced accusations of a counterfeiting-related offense.

Lau challenged the move, arguing the officer had exceeded his legal authority. He also contended that placing him on parole improperly allowed the Department of Homeland Security to quickly launch deportation proceedings against him — this after he pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothing in New Jersey.

The nation’s highest court rejected that argument. In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that “border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took a sharply different view in her dissent, arguing that placing Lau on immigration parole before any criminal conviction essentially trapped him in what she called “immigration limbo.” She warned that the ruling goes too far in empowering the government. “I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check,” she wrote. Her dissent was joined by her two fellow liberal justices.

The ruling arrives as the Supreme Court is actively weighing a number of immigration-related disputes connected to President Donald Trump’s broad immigration enforcement efforts — though this particular case predates his current time in office.

The Trump administration had argued that mere suspicion of criminal activity is sufficient grounds to place a green card holder on immigration parole. Federal attorneys pushed the court to interpret executive authority over immigration matters broadly.

Among the other immigration issues currently before the court are challenges to Trump’s effort to eliminate birthright citizenship, a potential revival of a restrictive asylum policy, and a bid to end temporary legal protections for migrants who fled war and natural disasters in their home countries.

The Pentagon has informed U.S. senators that it requires approximately $80 billion in new funding — the bulk of it to pay for the American war against Iran — a request that would pile on top of an already enormous military spending increase sought by President Donald Trump.

While the White House Office of Management and Budget has not yet submitted a formal request to Congress, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been making visits to Capitol Hill, including on Monday evening. A senior deputy defense secretary briefed senators on the Iran-related funding request last week, according to two individuals familiar with the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly. The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the situation.

The request arrives at a politically sensitive time. Many lawmakers remain skeptical of the deal Trump reached with Iran to bring the war to a close and are uncertain about what comes next. The White House has already put forward a staggering $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget — an increase of nearly 50% over the current fiscal year.

Meanwhile, discrepancies have surfaced over what exactly was agreed to during high-level peace talks in Switzerland, where Vice President JD Vance led negotiations Monday alongside Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf. Technical teams have since been working to nail down the specifics of a deal.

One point of contention involves nuclear inspections. Vance had said the Switzerland talks produced an agreement allowing International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to visit Iranian nuclear sites bombed by the United States last year. But Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei told reporters Tuesday that no such visits had been scheduled.

Trump has also framed the potential unfreezing of Iranian financial assets as a boon for American agriculture, saying the money would be tied to Iran purchasing U.S.-grown corn, soybeans, and wheat. “These are things that are desperately needed by Iran,” Trump posted on social media. “This is a humanitarian crisis, and I feel it is necessary to help.”

Vance echoed that position, saying unfrozen Iranian funds “would actually go to buy American soy, American corn and American wheat for the benefit of the Iranian people.”

However, Iran pushed back on that framing. Baghaei said Tehran’s import decisions are based on “prices and quality,” adding: “It is interesting that the philosophy and goal of the war, which was the destruction of the Iranian civilization and the collapse of Iran, has become enriching American farmers.”

Iran’s ambassador in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, also disputed Vance’s claim that the U.S. and Qatar would have a say in how Iran spends any unfrozen assets. “Iran is the only country who decides what to do with those assets,” he told reporters.

Experts say a major surge in U.S. agricultural exports to Iran is unlikely. “I don’t expect that trade would be very large in the short run,” said Joseph Glauber, a research fellow emeritus at the International Food Policy Research Institute. Glauber noted that Iran already has established food suppliers including Brazil, India, Turkey, the European Union, Canada, Australia, and Argentina, and that pressuring Iran to buy American could “create some hard feelings with some of our competitors.”

On the domestic front, Trump is scheduled to visit a Mack Truck facility in the Allentown area of Pennsylvania on Tuesday — his first significant public appearance outside Washington since signing the interim agreement to end the Iran war. The trip is seen as an effort to shift focus toward the U.S. economy as November midterm elections approach. It marks Trump’s fifth second-term visit to Pennsylvania. The Macungie facility sits in the 7th Congressional District, where Republican Rep. Ryan Mackenzie faces Democratic challenger Bob Brooks this fall.

The visit comes as economic concerns grow. About one-third of U.S. adults approved of Trump’s handling of the economy, according to a June Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll — consistent with the previous month’s numbers.

In other developments, two more individuals have been arrested in connection with an alleged plot targeting Trump’s UFC cage-fighting event at the White House earlier this month. Law enforcement disrupted the plan several days before the June 14 event. William Lee Spartacus Falkner of Belfair, Washington, was arrested Friday and charged with conspiracy to commit murder in the Western District of Washington. Jordan W. Rincker, 28, was arrested Sunday on the same charge in the Western District of Missouri. Neither has yet entered a plea.

Separately, a federal judge on Monday blocked a recently updated version of a federal database program called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, which was central to the Trump administration’s push to remove noncitizens from state voter rolls. U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan sided with advocacy groups who argued the upgraded system improperly consolidated Americans’ sensitive personal data in ways that could lead to eligible voters being wrongly removed. She said Congress had explicitly banned the centralization of such data and that the agencies behind the program “knew that the database violates those statutory protections.”

Also, National Guard troops and U.S. Park Police continued patrolling the area around the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool as the Trump administration races against a self-imposed deadline to repair a troubled renovation before the nation’s 250th anniversary celebration. The $14 million-plus project has been plagued by a peeling liner and an algae bloom. Trump has said the pool will likely need to be drained again for repairs and has alleged, without offering evidence, that vandals dumped fertilizer in the water and cut the liner with a box cutter. Contractors and federal workers have been using chemicals and ozone nanobubbles to address the algae problem, though a clear repair timeline had not been established as of Monday.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump took to social media Tuesday to assert that Iran has agreed to permit nuclear inspections well into the future, even as Iranian officials contradict that claim.

“Iran has fully and completely agreed to highest level Nuclear inspections long into the future (Infinity!!!)” Trump wrote in an online post. “This will insure ‘Nuclear Honesty.’ If they did not agree to this, there would be no further negotiations!”

Iran, however, has rejected that characterization, stating that it has not entered into any discussions about its nuclear program and has not agreed to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to return to the country.

Trump also addressed the U.S. military presence in the Strait of Hormuz, saying American ships will remain stationed there in the event a blockade of Iranian ports needs to be reinstated — though he described that scenario as “at this point, highly unlikely.” He noted that 19 million barrels of oil moved through the Hormuz Strait on Monday.

Starting Monday, the United States granted Iran a 60-day sanctions waiver following the first round of talks under an emerging peace agreement between the two nations.

Trump further explained that funds being released by the U.S. Treasury will be held in escrow under American oversight and used solely to purchase food and medical supplies from the United States — specifically naming corn, wheat, and soybeans among the goods.

“These are things that are desperately needed by Iran. This is a humanitarian crisis, and I feel it is necessary to help, NOW, before it is too late,” Trump wrote.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani isn’t on any ballot Tuesday, but he’s one of the most important figures in the day’s elections. The mayor has thrown his support behind three far-left candidates connected to the Democratic Socialists of America, who are challenging two established Democratic incumbents — Representative Adriano Espaillat in the Bronx and Representative Dan Goldman in Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan — while a third candidate backed by Mamdani is competing for an open seat in Queens.

Both Espaillat and Goldman supported other candidates during the mayoral race, and Mamdani views them as not being tough enough in their stance toward Israel during its ongoing conflict with Hamas. Prominent democratic socialists in national politics include Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose congressional district covers parts of the Bronx and Queens.

Mamdani’s involvement puts him in direct conflict with House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, another powerful New York political figure. Jeffries, who would become third in line to the presidency if Democrats recapture the House in November, has a vested interest in protecting Democratic incumbents.

New York, Maryland, and Utah are all holding primaries Tuesday, while South Carolina is hosting runoffs the same day.

Mamdani’s Challengers

The three candidates Mamdani is championing are Darializa Avila Chevalier, Brad Lander, and Assembly Member Claire Valdez. Avila Chevalier, who is both an activist and a doctoral student, is running against Espaillat — a five-term congressman who leads the Congressional Hispanic Caucus — in a district that stretches across northern Manhattan and into the Bronx.

Lander, a former New York City comptroller who also ran for mayor, is challenging Goldman in Lower Manhattan. Goldman, a former federal prosecutor, became well known for leading House Democrats’ investigation into the first impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Valdez is competing in a crowded race for the seat being vacated by retiring Representative Nydia Velazquez, whose district covers portions of Brooklyn and Queens. Her opponents include Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso and New York City Council Member Julie Won.

The results in these three races won’t change Democrats’ chances of winning the House majority, but they will serve as a measure of Mamdani’s political reach and the broader strength of the democratic socialist movement.

A Vulnerable Republican Learns His Opponent

Republican U.S. Representative Mike Lawler, who holds a district that Kamala Harris carried in 2024, will discover his Democratic general election challenger on Tuesday. The leading Democratic contenders include Cait Conley, a combat veteran and national security expert who is part of a group of female veterans called the “Hell Cats” running for office, and Rockland County Legislator Beth Davidson.

Lawler’s lower Hudson Valley district is one of just three Republican-held seats in areas Harris won, making it a prime target for Democrats hoping to flip the House in November. Harris won the district by only 0.6 percentage points, though Lawler himself won reelection by 6 percentage points. Despite a favorable national political climate for Democrats, Lawler is expected to start the general election with a cash advantage of between $3 million and $4 million over whoever wins the Democratic primary.

A Kennedy, a Conway, and Two Lawmakers Battle for Manhattan Seat

A packed Democratic field is competing to replace retiring Representative Jerry Nadler in his Manhattan district. The contenders include two state Assembly members, an attorney whose former wife was a top adviser to President Trump, and a grandson of President John F. Kennedy.

A recent Emerson College poll showed Assembly Members Micah Lasher — a former aide to Nadler — and Alex Bores essentially tied. Both were well ahead of attorney George Conway, whose ex-wife Kellyanne Conway served as a Trump adviser during his first term, and Kennedy family member Jack Schlossberg. Conway and Schlossberg were polling in the low double digits, but nearly one in three likely primary voters remained undecided, leaving the door open for a surprise outcome.

Stand for New York PAC, a super PAC funded by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has poured more than $10 million into supporting Lasher. A pro-artificial intelligence super PAC called Think Big has spent close to $8 million in opposition to Bores, who has the backing of three other super PACs.

Schlossberg, 33, is the wild card in the race. Despite a limited professional background, he has built a significant social media following, with more than 850,000 followers on TikTok — a profile that echoes Mamdani’s own digital popularity. Whoever wins this primary will be heavily favored to win the congressional seat in November.

Trump Backs Both Candidates in South Carolina Governor’s Runoff

South Carolina voters are deciding their likely next governor in a runoff between Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette and Attorney General Alan Wilson. Trump had initially endorsed Evette, but late last week he signaled to South Carolina Republicans that either candidate would be acceptable.

“These were the two that I was hoping would get into a Runoff, and they did,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”

Trump’s endorsement record has been mixed recently. While he successfully pushed out Republican Senators John Cornyn and Bill Cassidy and Representatives Thomas Massie and Nancy Mace, two of his gubernatorial picks have fallen short. Earlier this month, Iowa voters rejected Trump-backed Representative Randy Feenstra in favor of businessman and farmer Zach Lahn. Last week, Georgia voters chose billionaire healthcare executive Rick Jackson over Trump-endorsed Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones.

The winner of the South Carolina runoff will face Democratic state Representative Jermaine Johnson in the general election, though the Republican is expected to prevail in a state Trump won by 18 percentage points in 2024.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is putting his political influence to the test Tuesday, as he throws his support behind a group of democratic socialist candidates challenging longtime Democratic incumbents in New York’s primary elections. While the outcomes could shift the internal balance of the Democratic Party, analysts say the results are unlikely to serve as a winning model for Democrats hoping to reclaim Congress in November or the White House in 2028.

Mamdani, whose 2025 election victory stunned the political establishment, is championing a slate of candidates aligned with his democratic socialist vision. Among the most closely watched races is a challenge against a senior Latino member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The push comes on the heels of democratic socialist candidates winning primary contests in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles mayor races, and follows a democratic socialist victory in Seattle’s mayor’s race last year.

The movement has roots stretching back roughly a decade, gaining significant momentum from Senator Bernie Sanders’ unexpectedly strong 2016 presidential campaign and his continued efforts to cultivate a new wave of democratic socialist leaders.

The surge is also being driven by frustration among progressive Democratic voters — anger at President Donald Trump’s agenda and governing approach, as well as dissatisfaction with the Biden administration’s support of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza following a Hamas attack. That conflict has resulted in more than 73,000 Palestinian deaths.

“Energy on the far right ignites energy on the far left. Politics is reactive,” said Steve Israel, a former U.S. House member from New York who spent part of his congressional career working to elect more Democrats.

Tensions Within the Democratic Party

For months following Mamdani’s 2025 primary win, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries faced repeated questions from reporters about whether he would endorse his fellow New Yorker. Jeffries ultimately did offer his endorsement — but waited until just 11 days before the general election to do so. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, meanwhile, stayed silent on Mamdani throughout the entire campaign.

The stakes are high for Jeffries, who is positioned to become U.S. House Speaker — and second in line for the presidency — if Democrats win control of the House in November’s midterm elections.

Winning that majority, however, depends not on solidly Democratic “blue” districts, but on flipping competitive “purple” swing districts currently held by Republicans.

One of the most consequential races Tuesday involves democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier, who is backed by Mamdani and is running against five-term Democratic Representative Adriano Espaillat in New York City’s 13th congressional district, which covers northern Manhattan and the Bronx.

“If a DSA member could knock off the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, that could matter,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way, a centrist Democratic consultancy.

Bennett also pointed to controversial statements Avila Chevalier made in past social media posts — including calls to abolish police and border controls, and questions about Israel’s right to exist — as potential ammunition for Republicans. “This is precisely the kind of person that they love to use to weaponize against other Democrats” running in competitive races, he said.

Steve Israel echoed that concern: “I do worry that the strength of democratic socialists in places like New York and California will be misread as the center of gravity for Democrats across the country” heading into November or the 2028 presidential race.

Avila Chevalier has since removed those social media posts and apologized for some of her language. However, in a June 17 interview with a group of editors, she stated: “I think that we just should not have a system that allows deportation to happen at all,” describing such a system as “rooted in deeply racist ideology.”

Espaillat fired back in a June 16 post on X: “We can’t just sweep things under the rug. Darializa has taken very extreme positions as reflected in her comments on social media not too long ago.” He added, “She is unfit for office and voters are smart enough to see that.”

More Socialist Challenges Across New York

Elsewhere in New York City, a democratic socialist is also challenging incumbent Democratic Representative Dan Goldman in the 10th congressional district, while another is competing for the 7th district seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Representative Nydia Velazquez.

Alex Jacquez, a progressive strategist and former senior adviser to Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign, said focus groups and polling show Democratic voters are deeply dissatisfied with their party’s leadership. “That is really where you are seeing the fault lines. Are you willing to take on the wealthy and take on corporations and take on the status quo to deliver results. Or are you not,” he said, describing the core populist message democratic socialists are running on.

Outside of heavily Democratic districts in New York, California, and similar strongholds, the party is pursuing a different strategy — recruiting women with strong military backgrounds to run in states like Florida and Colorado.

“Most of the competitive districts for Democrats are red and pink districts that you can only win as a Democrat in … where more moderate stances resonate in races against incumbent Republicans,” Israel said. He noted that presidential victories aren’t decided in reliably blue states. “It’s won in seven moderate battleground states.”

President Donald Trump is hitting the campaign trail again for the first time in two weeks, heading to politically contested Pennsylvania on Tuesday to make the case for American manufacturing and economic revival to voters who are feeling the pressure of rising prices.

Trump is scheduled to tour a Mack Trucks assembly facility in Macungie, Pennsylvania. There, he plans to step away from the ongoing foreign policy focus on Iran and instead spotlight his agenda centered on job creation and bringing industry back to the United States — a message that has long resonated with factory workers who make up the backbone of his political movement.

Trump’s Republican Party is fighting to keep its majority in Congress heading into November’s midterm elections. That effort has been complicated by a nearly four-month military conflict involving the U.S. and Israel against Iran, which has driven consumer costs to their steepest rise in three years. Negotiations toward a possible peace agreement in that conflict are currently underway.

Despite those headwinds, Trump is expected to highlight the brighter side of the economic picture, including steady growth, a strong job market, and the potential for prices to come down if the war reaches a resolution.

White House spokeswoman Liz Huston offered a preview of that message, stating: “Under the President’s leadership, key domestic industries are being revitalized, historic investments are pouring back into communities like Macungie, and families across the country are securing new, high-paying jobs.”

The stop is no accident geographically. Pennsylvania’s 7th congressional district, which covers the Lehigh Valley region of the state, is considered a competitive toss-up. The area includes Allentown — the city immortalized in a Billy Joel song about blue-collar struggle — and still maintains a significant manufacturing economy. Pennsylvania is also expected to be a major battleground in the 2028 presidential race.

The district is currently represented by first-term Republican Congressman Ryan Mackenzie. Voters there chose former President Joe Biden over Trump in 2020, but then swung to support Trump over Democrat Kamala Harris in 2024.

State Democratic Party chair Eugene DePasquale pushed back in an emailed statement, connecting local Republican candidates — including Mackenzie — to what he described as a “costly war of choice that caused gas prices to skyrocket” and “cruel healthcare cuts” championed by Trump.

A federal judge has put a stop to the Trump Administration’s push to legally compel Minnesota officials to hand over records after those officials publicly criticized the federal government’s immigration enforcement operations.

In blocking the subpoenas, the judge made a pointed statement, saying there was “no doubt the subpoenas were issued to harass President Donald Trump’s political opponents.”

The ruling represents a significant legal setback for the administration’s efforts to use the subpoena process against state and local leaders who have voiced opposition to federal immigration policies.

President Donald Trump is turning his attention to the U.S. economy with a Tuesday visit to a Mack Truck facility in the Allentown area of Pennsylvania — his first major public appearance outside Washington since signing an interim agreement to bring the Iran war to a close.

The stop at the Macungie, Pennsylvania, plant is part of an effort by Trump to move past the conflict and the higher gas prices it triggered, with November midterm elections approaching. Pennsylvania has been a frequent destination for the president, and this marks his fifth second-term trip to the state — a critical swing state whose electoral votes helped carry him to the White House in both 2016 and 2024.

The facility sits within Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District, where Republican Rep. Ryan Mackenzie — a freshman lawmaker — is defending his seat against Democratic challenger Bob Brooks in November. Brooks, who serves as president of the state firefighters’ union, has earned the backing of Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, who is also on the ballot for reelection this year. Republicans hold a narrow majority in the House, and districts like this one are considered essential to keeping that control intact.

The visit takes place against a backdrop of economic uncertainty. A June poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that roughly one-third of American adults approved of Trump’s handling of the economy — consistent with numbers from the prior month.

The Iran conflict has also proven to be a political challenge. That same June AP-NORC poll, conducted as Trump announced a tentative deal with Iran and completed just before the interim agreement was formally signed, found that approximately 65% of U.S. adults disapprove of how Trump has managed the situation — a figure unchanged from May. While most Democrats and independents hold a negative view of his actions, only about 3 in 10 Republicans share that dissatisfaction.

Trump’s predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, also visited the same Mack Truck facility, using it as a backdrop to promote policies aimed at boosting manufacturing employment. Manufacturing jobs in the U.S. peaked in 1979 at nearly 19.6 million, declined following the 2001 recession and again during the 2007-09 Great Recession, and currently stand at 12.6 million as of May, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Tuesday’s trip is the latest in a series of Pennsylvania visits that highlight the state’s importance as a political battleground. Trump traveled to Mount Pocono in December to test messaging around affordability, visited Pittsburgh in July 2025 to highlight major energy and technology investments, went to West Mifflin in June 2025 to announce a doubling of tariffs on imported steel, and attended the NCAA wrestling championship in Philadelphia in March 2025.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina Republicans are casting ballots Tuesday in a heated runoff election to settle who will carry the party’s banner in the governor’s race — and the contest has turned into an all-out political brawl between two of the state’s most prominent figures.

President Donald Trump originally threw his support behind Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette over state Attorney General Alan Wilson ahead of the June 9 primary, but neither candidate managed to secure the outright majority required to clinch the nomination. Then, as Wilson appeared to gain traction heading into the runoff, Trump announced Friday that he was endorsing both candidates — leaving voters who had been looking to the president for direction without a clear signal.

Trump’s endorsements have proven decisive in many primary contests this year, though not always in gubernatorial races. His picks in Iowa and Georgia both came up short earlier this month.

For months, South Carolina voters have been bombarded with television commercials, direct mail pieces, and billboards as the race got underway more than a year ago. The contest attracted significant attention as the state’s first truly open governor’s race in over a decade. With Trump remaining a popular figure in South Carolina — despite some national softening on issues such as the economy — candidates across the Republican field made their closeness to the president a central part of their campaigns.

Just one week before the runoff, the two finalists squared off in their only scheduled debate. The event quickly spiraled into chaos.

Because the debate format allowed each candidate to respond any time their name was mentioned, the opening thirty minutes became a rapid-fire back-and-forth of accusations involving mudslinging and taxpayer-funded pay raises. The crowd responded with loud jeers and shouts throughout.

Reporters covering the debate at Coastal Carolina University observed audience members walking out as the noise level continued to rise — at times completely drowning out what the candidates were saying — with moderators and organizers doing nothing to restore order.

Wilson attacked Evette for skipping earlier debates and accused her of falsely claiming credit for signing legislation that Gov. Henry McMaster had actually signed. Evette fired back by labeling the longtime prosecutor a “career politician” and reminding the audience that Trump had endorsed her — not Wilson — going into the primary.

Throughout the campaign, in advertisements and mailers alike, Evette has consistently highlighted the fact that Trump singled her out from the Republican field as his preferred candidate for governor. She has also received the backing of McMaster, who selected her as his running mate in both the 2018 and 2022 governor’s races.

After Trump’s Friday announcement that he was supporting both candidates, Wilson wasted no time claiming the endorsement as his own. Shortly after Trump posted about the race on social media, Sen. Tim Scott announced his support for Wilson. A person familiar with Scott’s thinking, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the South Carolina Republican had been making phone calls on Wilson’s behalf, helping with fundraising, and working to persuade Trump to back him.

Wilson has also picked up support from several candidates who didn’t make the runoff, including U.S. Reps. Ralph Norman and Nancy Mace, along with state Sen. Josh Kimbrell, who dropped out just before the primary. On Monday, Sen. Ted Cruz traveled to South Carolina to campaign for Wilson.

The competition to win Trump’s favor has overshadowed nearly every other aspect of the primary campaign.

Even before Evette received Trump’s endorsement ahead of the primary, she regularly used photos and videos of herself alongside the president in her campaign materials. Mace and Norman also leaned heavily into their support for Trump’s policies and legislative agenda.

Wilson, who has served as South Carolina’s top law enforcement officer since 2011, has frequently pointed to the legal briefs he has filed in support of the Trump administration. He also made a trip to New York City to show support for Trump during his criminal trial over hush money payments, which ended in a conviction.

SALT LAKE CITY — Deeply red Utah has become an unexpected battleground for the ongoing tug-of-war inside the Democratic Party between its progressive and moderate wings, with a key primary election taking place Tuesday.

A court-mandated redrawing of Utah’s U.S. House districts has produced a new, strongly Democratic-leaning seat in the Salt Lake City area — and the competition to claim it has been fierce.

Former U.S. Rep. Ben McAdams, who by one political analysis was ranked the most conservative House Democrat during his single term in office, is facing three opponents who all position themselves further to the left. McAdams has been working to distance himself from his moderate label, while his rivals have been pressuring one another to step aside and unite behind a single progressive candidate.

The remaining three of Utah’s four congressional seats are expected to stay firmly in Republican hands, including the 3rd District, where Tuesday’s GOP primary pits a conservative challenger against a sitting Republican congresswoman.

Utah is an unusual case among Republican-dominated states — it’s one where the GOP is projected to actually lose a U.S. House seat following a prolonged legal dispute over the previous district boundaries.

That newly drawn 1st District seat, along with several in California, represents one of the few places where Democrats are expected to flip a seat — part of the fallout from a nationwide redistricting effort that President Donald Trump launched last year in an attempt to preserve the Republican majority in the House. Democrats need only a small net gain in November to take control of the chamber.

Contenders in the new Salt Lake City-area district have been competing to prove who is the most progressive — a sharp contrast to the traditional Democratic approach of appealing to Utah’s largely conservative voter base.

Given how the 1st District lines were drawn, whoever wins the Democratic primary will be a heavy favorite in November against Republican Riley Owen, a Navy Reserve intelligence officer who secured the GOP nomination at the state party’s spring convention.

Utah Democrats are running an open primary, which means any registered voter in the district — regardless of party — can participate. That format may work in McAdams’ favor, given his wider appeal across party lines.

When McAdams ran in 2018 — successfully ousting a Republican incumbent during the first midterm elections of Trump’s first term — he described himself as pro-life and campaigned as a moderate. Now, running in a far more Democratic district, he has pledged support for abortion rights and says he is only “moderate in tone.”

One of his main challengers is state Sen. Nate Blouin, a progressive voice in Utah’s Republican-controlled state legislature who is trying to recover from a social media controversy. In April, Blouin apologized for posts he made on internet forums between 2009 and 2015 that disparaged women and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Utah-based faith commonly known as the Mormon church.

Blouin has been working to energize voters he says have grown too comfortable with candidates who will “play nice” with Republicans. He has earned endorsements from some of the nation’s most prominent progressive figures, including independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and Democratic U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal, Greg Casar, and Maxwell Frost.

Two political newcomers are also in the race: Liban Mohamed and Michael Farrell. Mohamed, a former employee of Meta and TikTok, made a splash at the state Democratic convention earlier this year, winning the party’s official endorsement after five rounds of ranked-choice voting — beating out McAdams in the process. His opponents still qualified for the primary ballot by collecting voter signatures. Mohamed has the backing of U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley.

On the Republican side, the newly redrawn map has also created a challenge for U.S. Rep. Celeste Maloy, who is facing a primary threat from someone positioned even further to the right.

Maloy, who carries Trump’s endorsement, is being challenged in the redrawn 3rd District — which covers most of southern and eastern Utah — by former state lawmaker Phil Lyman. Lyman has promoted false claims of fraud from the 2020 presidential election and has long been a favorite among the state’s most conservative voters.

Lyman is perhaps best known for organizing an illegal ATV ride in 2014 to protest a federal decision to close a canyon in southeastern Utah to motorized vehicles. That closure was put in place to protect Native American cliff dwellings, artifacts, and burial sites. Lyman argued the move was federal government overreach.

A jury found him guilty of misdemeanor illegal ATV use and conspiracy, and a judge sentenced him in 2015 to 10 days in jail and three years of probation. Trump pardoned him in December 2020.

Maloy was first elected to Congress through a special election in 2023 and won a full term in 2024. She previously worked as a soil conservationist and an attorney specializing in public lands and water policy.

The winner of Tuesday’s Republican primary will face Democratic nominee Kent Udell, an engineer, in the November general election. The Republican candidate is heavily favored to win in the reliably conservative 3rd District.

NEW YORK (AP) — Democratic incumbents are fighting off energetic primary challenges Tuesday in at least two of New York’s congressional races, marking the latest battleground between the progressive left and the party’s establishment wing.

U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman and U.S. Rep. Adriano Espaillat are both working to hold onto their seats against candidates endorsed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the young democratic socialist who hopes the momentum from his election last year will help him transform the city’s congressional delegation.

Goldman is being challenged by former city Comptroller Brad Lander, while Espaillat is facing another Mamdani-backed contender — Darializa Avila Chevalier, a democratic socialist who previously helped organize pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia University.

In a separate race drawing considerable attention, Democrat Jack Schlossberg — the 33-year-old grandson of former President John F. Kennedy — is hoping to add his own page to the family’s storied political legacy. He’s running in a crowded contest for the seat being left open by retiring U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler. Mamdani has not weighed in on that particular race.

Schlossberg is competing in one of the nation’s most affluent congressional districts, which covers a large portion of central Manhattan. However, he has faced scrutiny over his limited professional background compared to more experienced rivals.

Others in that field include state Assembly members Micah Lasher, a veteran government figure with backing from Democratic party leaders, and Alex Bores, whose push to regulate artificial intelligence has drawn pushback from the tech sector. Also running is George Conway, a former attorney who co-founded the anti-Trump organization The Lincoln Project and has built his campaign around the goal of impeaching the president.

Only a few months into leading the city, Mamdani drew some surprise by actively endorsing candidates who are going up against Democrats favored by the party’s leadership.

Should his endorsed candidates win, Mamdani — who is a registered Democrat — could establish himself as a democratic socialist power broker with new allies in Congress. However, the strategy also carries the risk of deepening divisions within the Democratic Party and damaging his ties to party leadership.

Last month, the mayor threw his support behind Avila Chevalier, 32, in her contest against Espaillat, 71, who made history as the first Dominican American elected to Congress and currently represents a district spanning upper Manhattan and the Bronx. Espaillat had supported former Gov. Andrew Cuomo during last year’s mayoral race but later backed Mamdani after Mamdani secured the Democratic primary.

Avila Chevalier has no prior political office experience and presents herself as a political outsider free from corporate and real estate influence.

She has also attacked the incumbent over his past support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Espaillat’s allies have pushed back, pointing to a record of inflammatory and profane social media posts Avila Chevalier made when she was in her 20s as evidence she is not qualified for the position.

Lander, a well-known figure among the city’s progressive Democrats, secured the mayor’s endorsement in his race against Goldman, a progressive former federal prosecutor who served as lead counsel during Trump’s first impeachment proceedings.

The ongoing war in Gaza has emerged as a key dividing line between the two candidates, both of whom are Jewish. Lander has criticized Goldman for not taking a harder stance against Israel’s military campaign against Palestinians. Goldman has regularly condemned Israel’s government and denounced settler violence, but has declined to label the conflict a genocide — a term Lander has used.

Despite his position, Goldman has been pushed to sharpen his criticism of Israel’s conduct in the war in response to Lander’s attacks and evolving voter attitudes, even as he tries to keep his campaign centered on the rising cost of living and opposition to Trump’s agenda.

Mamdani and Lander were rivals during last year’s mayoral primary but later joined forces to block Cuomo’s attempted political comeback. Lander’s endorsement of Mamdani also helped calm some concerns among Jewish voters about Mamdani’s critical stance toward Israel.

Mamdani has additionally endorsed democratic socialist ally and state Assembly Member Claire Valdez over Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso in the race to fill the seat being vacated by retiring U.S. Rep. Nydia Velazquez, which covers portions of Brooklyn and Queens. Velazquez has endorsed Reynoso.

In northern New York state, the Republican primary for a seat soon to be vacated by U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik features a Trump-endorsed political newcomer going up against a conservative state lawmaker.

Anthony Constantino, who heads the custom sticker company Sticker Mule, has made his enthusiasm for the president abundantly clear — placing a massive “Vote For Trump” sign on one of his company’s buildings, releasing a hip-hop album called “Thank You President Trump,” and commissioning a statue of Trump that he presented to the president in Florida. Trump has given Constantino his endorsement.

Constantino’s opponent, conservative state Assembly Member Robert Smullen, has strong backing from local Republicans. Smullen has argued that Constantino’s behavior — including frequent attacks on the state Republican Party — disqualifies him from serving in the House.

The U.S. Justice Department announced Monday that it has launched a civil rights investigation into a small New York City coffee shop chain after the business declared online that it would have refused service to a pro-Israel congressman if it had recognized him during his visit over the weekend.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon announced the probe on X, stating, “The Civil Rights Division has opened an investigation and will bring an enforcement action if warranted.”

Dhillon added, “Federal law prohibits public accommodations such as coffee shops from discriminating against patrons based on their race, religion, or national origin.”

According to The New York Times, Democratic Representative Dan Goldman stopped into Poetica Coffee in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn on Sunday, visiting outside his own district alongside his 7-year-old daughter. Goldman said the stop was made so his daughter could use the restroom, and that he purchased a coffee as a gesture of appreciation to the staff for accommodating her.

The coffee shop responded to Goldman’s visit with an Instagram post directed at him. “We see that you stopped by our shop today for a coffee,” the post read. “We don’t serve racists, fascists, homophobes, genocide enablers or anyone in between. Too bad we didn’t recognize you right away, or we would have turned you away.”

The shop also stated it had issued Goldman a refund and closed its message with, “Don’t ever come to Poetica.”

By Monday, the Instagram post was no longer visible, and the account itself appeared to have been deactivated.

Goldman is currently endorsed by New York Governor Kathy Hochul and is heading into a June 23 primary election against Brad Lander, the former New York City comptroller who is backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Both Goldman and Lander are Jewish.

The incident comes amid ongoing debate over the conflict in Gaza. Israel’s military campaign there, which has stretched beyond two years, has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, widespread hunger, and the displacement of Gaza’s entire population. Multiple human rights experts, scholars, and a United Nations inquiry have described the situation as a genocide. Israel maintains its actions are acts of self-defense, citing a Hamas-led attack in October 2023 that killed approximately 1,200 people and resulted in more than 250 individuals being taken hostage.

A federal court in California has thrown out a lawsuit brought by the Trump administration against the city of Los Angeles over its local immigration enforcement policy.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin ruled against the administration’s claim that the city’s ordinance was unconstitutional, though he did allow the administration the opportunity to submit a revised complaint.

The White House had not responded to requests for comment by Monday.

Los Angeles city attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto issued a statement Monday saying the decision “reinforces the well-established principle that local governments have the authority to decide how to use their personnel and resources.”

The administration originally filed the lawsuit last June, arguing that Los Angeles broke federal law by adopting policies that prevent city employees and resources from being used to assist federal immigration enforcement or to gather information about individuals’ citizenship status. The legal action came just weeks after President Trump sent troops to Los Angeles to suppress protests against deportation operations.

In his Saturday ruling, Judge Olguin found that rather than interfering with the federal government, the city’s ordinance simply “controls the actions of the City’s own agents and agencies” — directly contradicting the administration’s core argument.

This dismissal is part of a broader pattern. The Trump administration has pursued multiple lawsuits against cities with similar immigration policies, most of which are led by Democrats. Federal courts have also dismissed administration lawsuits against Boston and Chicago over comparable policies.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is asking Congress for around $80 billion, with the bulk of that money intended to pay for the ongoing U.S. war against Iran. The request adds to an already massive military spending push being sought by President Donald Trump.

While the White House Office of Management and Budget has not yet formally submitted the request to Congress, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been meeting with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including on Monday evening. A senior deputy defense secretary briefed senators on the Iran funding request last week, according to two individuals who were familiar with the matter but not authorized to speak publicly about it.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the developments.

The push for this level of war funding is unfolding at a politically sensitive time. Many lawmakers are skeptical of the deal Trump reached with Iran to end the conflict, and uncertain about what comes next. The White House has also put forward a sweeping $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget request — nearly 50% more than what is currently being spent in this fiscal year.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he anticipates a supplemental spending request from the administration related to the war, and when it comes, “we’ll work through it and see where the votes are.”

“We need to make sure we’re doing everything we can to replenish, resupply a lot our munitions that have been depleted — not only just with what’s happening with Iran, but prior to that,” said Thune, R-S.D.

Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg spoke with multiple senators about the proposal through phone calls last week and notified congressional committees that the $80 billion request had been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget. The Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment.

The funding package is expected to face significant resistance from lawmakers who opposed Trump’s decision to go to war in the first place and are reluctant to increase Pentagon spending while Americans continue to struggle with a high cost of living.

“You’re spending families’ hard-earned tax dollars on a war that many strongly oppose,” Democratic Sen. Patty Murray told Hegseth during a Senate hearing last month.

Beyond the Iran-related funding, Republicans are hoping to secure roughly $1.1 trillion through the standard appropriations process — which typically requires bipartisan support — and an additional $350 billion through a mostly party-line vote later this summer.

The $80 billion figure is significantly higher than the $29 billion war cost estimate Hegseth provided to Congress during his testimony last month. That earlier figure mostly covered replacing munitions and repairing equipment, along with operational costs for deployed forces, but did not account for repairing or rebuilding U.S. military facilities damaged in the region.

The figure is also well below the $200 billion the Pentagon initially floated as a cost estimate when the war began. An early projection put the price of just the first week of fighting at $11.3 billion.

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a member of Democratic party leadership, said he believes the final price tag could end up being far greater than $80 billion. Schatz said he hasn’t polled fellow Democrats on whether there is appetite for an Iran-focused spending bill, “but I haven’t found anyone who wants to do this.”

Republican Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana took a different view, saying, “To me it’s less about the war, it’s more about the stockpiles.” Banks added, “I would sell it to my state as an investment in our defense industrial base, reshoring defense production to Indiana.”

Sen. Jack Reed, the leading Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that any Iran war supplemental funding cannot be handled on its own. He said it needs to come after lawmakers from both parties agree on an overall spending level for both defense and non-defense programs — “then the rest of this would follow pretty quickly,” Reed said.

Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota, who serves on the Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, said he has been working with the administration to expand the spending package to include disaster relief funds for California, Hawaii, and other states hit hard by wildfires and severe weather, as well as agricultural assistance for farmers. “I think that’s the kind of combination that could pass,” Hoeven said.

Hegseth declined to answer questions from reporters late Monday as he walked through the Capitol. However, during a Senate hearing last month, he responded to questions about war costs by asking rhetorically, “What is the cost of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon?” He acknowledged the president’s choice to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran “comes with cost — and we recognize that.”

Veteran conservative media personality Tucker Carlson declared on a recent podcast appearance that he wants nothing to do with the Republican Party going into the November midterm elections — a dramatic break from a political affiliation he championed for decades, including during his long run as one of Fox News Channel’s top-rated hosts.

Speaking late last week on the podcast “Can’t Be Censored,” Carlson was equally clear that he has no interest in switching sides. “Not gonna support the Democratic Party,” he said. “I don’t know what I’m going to do.”

Since being let go by Fox News in 2023, Carlson has built a substantial audience through his own independent podcast. His break from the Republican Party has grown sharper in recent months, largely fueled by his opposition to President Donald Trump’s decision to launch military action against Iran in February.

Carlson had backed Trump during the 2024 presidential race, but after the war got underway, he publicly apologized for that support, saying he had been “misleading people” — though he insisted it was not intentional.

He has continued to hammer the party over what he sees as a failure to put American interests first, repeatedly arguing that the conflict with Iran serves Israel’s agenda rather than that of everyday Americans.

“They are making decisions on the basis of other criteria, what’s best for this company, what’s best for Israel, what’s best for our donors,” Carlson said. “That’s not just, like, they are off in the wrong direction, like, that is unacceptable, that’s treasonous, it’s immoral, it can’t continue.”

Carlson framed his departure as the end of a long and loyal relationship with the party. “I’ve been a consistent defender for 35 years of the Republican Party, I mean very consistent defender, but there’s no defending this,” he said. “So no, I’m out. And if I’m out, then I think a lot of other people are out.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate gave its approval Monday to a bipartisan affordable housing bill, with congressional leaders pushing to wrap up the process by the end of this week so President Donald Trump can sign it into law.

The bill — officially titled the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act — is aimed at increasing the number of affordable single-family homes available to buyers at a time when high prices remain the top concern for voters heading into November’s midterm elections. The legislation now moves to the House of Representatives for a final vote.

Addressing a Long-Standing Housing Shortage

The United States has faced a shortage of affordable housing for years, driven by outdated building regulations and the lingering effects of the 2008 financial crisis — particularly in southeastern states, the industrial Midwest, and parts of the Southwest. Estimates of how many new homes are needed vary widely, ranging from 1.5 million to as many as 7.3 million.

Limiting Wall Street’s Role in the Housing Market

One of the bill’s key provisions would cap the number of single-family homes that large Wall Street investment firms can hold at 350 per company. An earlier Senate version of the bill would have required those firms to sell off their holdings within seven years, but that provision was removed from the final legislation. Supporters of the cap say big institutional investors drive up home prices by outbidding everyday buyers.

Cutting Through Red Tape on Construction

The bill would waive or speed up environmental reviews tied to construction projects and would free up additional funding through federal block grants to states. A U.S. Department of Agriculture rural housing program would also be overhauled under the measure. In total, the legislation combines 36 housing proposals passed by the Senate in March with 11 approved by the House in May.

Political Stakes Heading Into Midterms

Republicans, including President Trump, made tackling inflation a central promise of their 2024 campaign — but prices have continued to climb. The annual inflation rate stood at 4.2% for the 12 months ending in May, the highest level in more than three years, largely driven by rising energy costs connected to the U.S. conflict with Iran. Even if a peace agreement is reached, analysts warn it could take time for energy prices to fall. Meanwhile, the average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage has risen to 6.47%, up from 6.11% in mid-March. With midterm campaigns intensifying, both Republicans and Democrats are eager to show voters they are taking concrete steps to address the housing crisis.

Helping First-Time and Younger Buyers

The average first-time homebuyer is now 40 years old, according to supporters of the bill. The legislation includes a pilot program designed to expand access to small-dollar mortgages — those with principal balances of $100,000 or less — in an effort to bring younger buyers into the market.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, said the bill would “lower costs, expand housing supply, cut red tape.” U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the committee’s senior Democrat, described it as “the biggest housing bill in more than 30 years.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate is on track to pass a bipartisan housing bill Monday that seeks to lower costs and increase the number of available homes — marking one of the most significant efforts in recent memory to reduce federal regulations and shift more control to local governments.

The legislation has been the subject of intense back-and-forth negotiations between the House and Senate in recent weeks, as lawmakers from both parties look to tackle housing affordability heading into an election year. The final version of the bill prohibits corporate investors from purchasing single-family homes, though it dropped an earlier Senate provision that would have required those investors to sell newly built homes within seven years.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, worked alongside Democrats to advance the measure. He described it as the product of years of effort to “lower costs, expand housing supply, cut red tape, protect taxpayers, and help more Americans achieve the dream of homeownership.”

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, told the Associated Press the bill carries real weight “because it acknowledges that the federal government has a role to play in lowering housing prices and because for the first time ever, private equity will be blocked from buying up single family homes and trying to turn housing into one more Wall Street investment.”

Senate approval of the bill would stand as a rare moment of bipartisan cooperation at a time when much of the Republican legislative agenda has hit roadblocks. The House is expected to give the bill its final stamp of approval later this week, after which it heads to President Donald Trump, who has signaled his backing.

Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California, who played a role in negotiating the bill, called it a “huge step toward finally addressing the affordable housing and homelessness crises in this country.”

Both parties have rallied behind the legislation as evidence they are taking the nation’s affordability problem seriously. Rising home prices, driven largely by a shortage of affordable housing, have weighed on American families. The housing market has been struggling since 2022, when mortgage rates began climbing from the historically low levels seen during the pandemic.

Sales of previously owned homes have hovered near a 4-million-unit annual pace since 2023 — well below the historical norm of around 5.2 million per year. Sales hit a 30-year low last year and have remained sluggish into this year, falling in both January and February compared to the same period a year ago.

The Economic Report of the President released in April identified a shortage of 10 million homes nationwide. A separate report this month from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University found existing home sales at three-decade lows and rising inventories due to high buying costs. That report noted that “cost burdens for both renters and owners continue to climb, while assistance remains profoundly underfunded.”

While the median monthly rent across the country has been trending downward for nearly three years, it was still 17.2% higher in May than it was before the pandemic, according to data from Realtor.com.

To help grow the housing supply, the bill would simplify environmental review processes and speed up construction timelines. It would direct funding to local governments that are building more housing, including Community Development Block Grant dollars for communities that exceed the median rate of homebuilding. It would also set aside money to convert abandoned infrastructure into housing and provide a framework for communities looking to overhaul outdated zoning rules that often limit larger housing developments.

The legislation would also allow banks to put more money into affordable housing, raise caps on the number of public housing units eligible for private financing through Section 8 to help rehabilitate properties, and remove outdated restrictions to expand federal financing options for manufactured homes.

Warren highlighted the importance of manufactured housing, saying: “Manufactured housing produces some of the most cost-effective housing in America, but access to financing has been tightly restricted. This creates the opportunity for more manufactured housing and, at the same time, creates a structure for people living in manufactured housing communities to organize and protect their investment in their homes.”

One sticking point between the two chambers involved a federal disaster recovery program. An earlier Senate version had permanently authorized block grant recovery funds — a change designed to eliminate the need for new funding requests after every disaster. House members pushed back over concerns about how the program had been managed, and the two sides ultimately agreed on a three-year authorization instead.

The bill has drawn broad support from across the housing sector, including organizations that represent landlords and large property owners as well as advocacy groups for tenants and low-income renters.

David Dworkin, chief executive of the National Housing Conference — described as the nation’s oldest housing coalition — offered measured praise for the legislation. “There is no magic wand that will fix this crisis overnight, and no single piece of legislation is perfect,” he said. “Compromise demands that. But this bill is a significant down payment on a long-term effort to make housing more affordable for all Americans.”

A man who shares the same name and political party as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan filed a legal challenge Monday, contesting a state elections official’s decision to pull him from the August primary ballot.

Attorneys for the challenger Sullivan argue in the court filing that the ruling by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher violates both state and federal law. They are asking that their client be restored to the ballot. The challenger has insisted all along that he is a legitimate candidate and that elections officials had no legal grounds to remove him.

His entry into the race — filed just days before the June 1 deadline — sparked sharp criticism from Sen. Sullivan and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Both called him a sham candidate and accused him of working in concert with Democrats to improve the chances of Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola. Peltola’s campaign, state Democrats, and the challenger himself all denied those accusations.

Sen. Sullivan and Peltola rank as the highest-profile candidates in a crowded field of more than a dozen contenders. The race is considered one of the most significant U.S. Senate contests in this year’s midterm elections, with both parties viewing it as critical to controlling the chamber.

On June 15 — one week after Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom announced an investigation into the challenger’s candidacy — Beecher issued her disqualification ruling. She determined that his declaration of candidacy “was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the office of United States Senator, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality.”

When Dahlstrom launched the investigation, she pointed to what she described as “credible allegations” that the challenger filed his candidacy “in coordination with another candidate and campaign” with the goal of confusing and “manipulating” voters. However, when Beecher ultimately removed him from the ballot, she did not cite any evidence of coordination with Peltola or Democratic officials. The challenger himself, when asked directly whether he had been in contact with Peltola’s campaign, said “zero, none, zilch.”

Beecher said her decision rested on other grounds, including the fact that the challenger was registered to vote under the name Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and changed his party affiliation to Republican only when he entered the race. She also pointed to similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, as well as his use of a political consultant who has worked with Democratic clients.

Congressional candidates in Alaska fill out a form indicating how they want their name to appear on the ballot and their preferred party affiliation.

Beecher said she acted under a regulation stating that a candidate’s name cannot appear on a ballot “in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot,” including restrictions on academic or professional titles.

Legislative attorney Andrew Dunmire, responding to questions from Democratic state Rep. Andrew Gray, said the regulation Beecher cited does not actually prohibit placing the challenger’s name on the ballot. He suggested the elections division could instead design the ballot in a way that helps voters tell the two Sullivans apart.

Initially, the challenger had been certified and listed on the state candidate roster as Dan J. Sullivan, while the sitting senator appeared as Dan S. Sullivan with an incumbent designation.

Dunmire further stated his view that the division can only disqualify a congressional candidate if they fail to meet one of the three constitutional requirements for the office — those being age, residency, and citizenship.

Alaska uses an open primary system in which the top four finishers, regardless of party, move on to a ranked choice general election.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ruled that a recently overhauled government tool at the center of the Trump administration’s election integrity push is unlawful and cannot continue to be used.

U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan sided with advocacy groups who argued that recent upgrades to the program — known as Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE — combined Americans’ sensitive personal data in a way that could lead to eligible voters being improperly removed from voter rolls.

“All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan wrote in her order. “This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens.”

The judge stated that Congress had explicitly forbidden the government from centralizing Americans’ personal identifying information, and that the federal agencies behind the SAVE program “knew that the database violates those statutory protections.”

The ruling represents a significant legal blow to President Donald Trump’s efforts to use federal agencies to push states to remove noncitizens from voter rolls. The updated SAVE system — which critics had called an unlawful centralized federal voter database — had been a cornerstone of the second election-related executive order Trump signed this year. The court’s decision leaves the program’s future in doubt.

James Percival, general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security, responded to the ruling on social media, writing: “It’s amazing how hard the Left will fight to stop us from solving problems they insist do not exist.” The department pointed to his post as its official comment on the ruling. The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.

The SAVE program was originally established under an immigration law requiring the Department of Homeland Security to assist federal, state, and local agencies in preventing government benefits from reaching noncitizens. After the Trump administration significantly expanded the program’s capabilities in April 2025, at least 25 states began using it to review their voter rolls. Since then, more than 67 million voter registrations have been run through the system. Critics have raised concerns that the program could end up stripping legitimate voters of their registration.

The plaintiffs in the case — which included the League of Women Voters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and five unnamed U.S. citizens — alleged that the updated SAVE program violated both privacy and voting rights. They also claimed the Trump administration broke federal privacy laws by failing to meet transparency requirements when making changes to the system.

In her written ruling, the judge noted that the agencies involved were “scrambling to comply with an Executive Order aimed at reshaping federal elections,” adding that “they haphazardly combined and repurposed the private information of millions of Americans, including citizenship data that they knew to be unreliable.”

During an October court hearing, plaintiffs attorney Nikhel Sus argued that naturalized citizens face a heightened risk of being wrongly removed from voter rolls. “They are uniquely vulnerable to errors in the database,” said Sus, who represents Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Following Monday’s ruling, Sus called the decision an “across the board victory” and said the plaintiffs were pleased that the judge reinforced the argument that the federal government does not have implied authority to freely share sensitive personal data between agencies.

ATLANTA — A bill meant to preserve Georgia’s current ballot-counting system through the upcoming midterm elections is running into fierce opposition from state Democrats, following a weekend move by Republican state senators to add a hand recount requirement to the legislation.

Georgia’s governor, Republican Brian Kemp, called lawmakers into a special session partly to deal with a July 1 deadline that would have banned the QR codes currently used to tally official vote totals. Legislators had set that deadline two years ago but never settled on an alternative vote-counting method.

Some voting rights advocates had already raised concerns that making changes this close to the midterms could cause confusion at the polls. Georgia is considered a political battleground state, with major races for both U.S. Senate and governor on the November ballot.

Last week, state lawmakers appeared close to agreeing on a bill that would push the July 1 deadline back to 2028. However, over the weekend, Republican senators passed an amendment requiring a complete hand recount of the top two races on the ballot — which in November would be the governor’s race and the U.S. Senate contest.

The amended bill cleared the Senate along party lines, but the House did not move to schedule a vote on it Monday.

Georgia Democrats argue that conducting a hand recount in November would create widespread disorder and fuel doubts about the legitimacy of the results. Studies have found that hand-counting ballots is more likely to produce errors, costs more money, and tends to slow down the reporting of results. Despite this, hand counting has gained support among Republican lawmakers in several states, driven in part by President Donald Trump’s repeated and unsubstantiated claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

“What we are experiencing is a Republican Senate who’s acting extraordinarily irresponsibly with Georgia’s elections and people’s votes,” said state Rep. Saira Draper, a Democrat, on Monday.

Republican state Sen. Max Burns stood behind the Senate’s version of the bill, arguing that manual and machine counts are compatible. “This amendment to a good bill is to strengthen it so that the voters have confidence in election security,” he said, adding that hand counts and machine counts can “coexist and confirm each other’s ultimate results.”

Georgia’s existing election setup prints QR codes on ballots, which machines then scan to record votes. The system has been a target of criticism from Trump, who alleged without evidence that voting machines in Georgia manipulated or erased votes during the 2020 election — a race he narrowly lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

Georgia’s voting machines have also been at the center of various conspiracy theories, which manufacturer Dominion Voting Systems has contested in court. At the same time, some election integrity advocates have raised separate concerns, arguing that the machines could be vulnerable to hacking and that voters have no way to verify their choices since QR codes are not human-readable.

If passed, the Senate bill would extend the current deadline to January 1, 2028, and establish a committee tasked with recommending standards for a new voting system. That committee would have until January 31, 2027, to deliver its findings, with state lawmakers responsible for funding, purchasing, and putting the new system in place in time for the 2028 election cycle.

The special session had also been intended to redraw Georgia’s congressional and legislative district maps ahead of 2028, but those plans were set aside by state lawmakers.

WASHINGTON — Armed with a self-imposed deadline and a troubled renovation project, the Trump administration deployed National Guard service members and U.S. Park Police to patrol the deck surrounding the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on Monday. The move comes as officials work to address the fallout from a botched cleaning and renovation effort ahead of the country’s 250th anniversary celebration.

The increased security presence followed the president’s claim, made two days earlier, that authorities had made “multiple arrests” of individuals he blamed for damage to the pool’s peeling coating. The coating was installed as part of a $14 million-plus renovation project. An algae bloom has since overtaken the water, clouding the newly applied liner.

Trump has acknowledged that the pool will likely need to be drained again for liner repairs and promised the situation would be resolved quickly. However, no clear timeline was available Monday, and the administration did not answer questions about plans for a new round of repair work. In recent days, contractors and federal workers have been deploying chemicals and ozone nanobubbles in an effort to beat back the algae.

The president originally promoted the renovation project as a way to clean up and restore a landmark he claimed had been neglected and left in poor condition by previous administrations. He personally selected the “American flag blue” color for the new pool coating, envisioning a gleaming centerpiece along the National Mall. Algae has been a persistent problem at the pool for roughly a century.

Within weeks of Trump declaring the project complete in time for Independence Day, a vivid green algae bloom clouded the water. Last Friday, an approximately four-foot-square section of the liner was observed partially floating in the pool. The Associated Press reported seeing additional loose pieces in the water on Monday.

On social media, the president has pointed the finger at what he called “SICK, DERANGED PEOPLE!” In a Monday post on Truth Social, Trump claimed the damage includes a “300 foot long gash” and alleged that “chemicals have been illegally placed in the water.” The day before, he posted that work to fix the “seriously vandalized Reflecting Pool” would begin right away.

Trump has not provided evidence to back up those claims. Experts note that even if someone deliberately peeled portions of the liner, that would not account for the algae bloom, which appeared more severe than what the pool experienced before the renovation took place.

Images of the struggling project spread rapidly across social media last week, drawing curious crowds to the site. An unknown number of visitors were detained by federal authorities. Among those arrested was David Hearn, 67, of Bethesda, Maryland — a former Olympic canoe racer.

Hearn told the Associated Press that he reached into the pool to get a closer look at the peeling coating. He said he briefly touched a piece that was still connected to the pool’s side, then pulled back shortly after a park worker told him to stop. Despite that, he said he was held by National Guard troops and Park Police for five hours before being released Friday night.

“I’m a curious citizen,” Hearn said in a phone interview. “I reached down to see what it felt like. It was very rubbery.”

The Park Police did not respond Monday to questions from the AP about the total number of arrests or whether any formal charges had been filed. Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department confirmed Monday that it has no involvement in the matter.

It remains unclear what specific criminal or civil law someone would be breaking by reaching into the pool. In one of his Truth Social posts, Trump threatened prison time for those he blamed, citing laws that prohibit defacing federal monuments.

The Trump administration rolled out a set of proposed rule changes on Monday that would significantly loosen requirements for oil and gas companies operating on federal lands, including a sharp reduction in the financial guarantees drillers must set aside for abandoned wells.

The proposals align with President Donald Trump’s broader push to scale back business regulations and boost domestic fossil fuel production.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended the changes in an official statement, saying, “These targeted updates cut through the red tape that has historically deterred investment, ensuring our public lands remain a reliable engine for economic growth and innovation.”

One of the most significant changes involves statewide bonding requirements — financial guarantees used to cover the cost of sealing off abandoned oil and gas wells if a company goes under. The Department of the Interior is proposing to drop that bond amount from $500,000, a figure set during the Biden administration, down to just $25,000 per state.

To put that in perspective, a 2021 analysis by the non-profit organization Resources for the Future estimated that plugging a single abandoned well costs roughly $20,000.

The agency is also proposing to dramatically shorten the public comment period for oil and gas drilling permits — cutting it from 90 days down to just 10 days.

Additionally, the Interior Department wants to walk back certain regulations designed to limit methane leaks from drilling sites and pipelines. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that commonly escapes from those locations. The agency says rolling back those rules would reduce compliance costs for the industry by nearly $17 million annually.

A federal judge has put a stop to the Trump administration’s push to subpoena Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and several other state officials, determining that the Justice Department was abusing its investigative authority to punish those who refused to help crack down on illegal immigration.

In a ruling made public Monday, U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz concluded that the primary purpose of the subpoenas was to pressure Minnesota officials into helping enforce federal immigration law and to punish them for declining to do so. The judge found the connection between the information being sought and any actual criminal activity to be “extremely weak to nonexistent.”

Tensions between the Trump administration and Minnesota’s Democratic leadership had been building since January, when federal immigration officers clashed with protesters in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area — particularly following the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal officers.

President Donald Trump had threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to suppress the protests and accused Walz — who served as Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris’ running mate in 2024 — along with other officials, of encouraging demonstrators to interfere with Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

The subpoenas, issued in January, were part of a probe into whether Walz and other officials had obstructed or interfered with law enforcement. They were directed at the offices of Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, and officials in Ramsey and Hennepin counties.

Judge Schiltz wrote that the materials sought in the subpoenas “largely if not entirely relate to constitutionally protected conduct,” and noted that Minnesota has every legal right to decline using its resources to enforce federal immigration law. He concluded that the Justice Department “is not conducting a criminal investigation” but is instead misusing the grand jury process for unlawful purposes.

The judge added that the evidence pointing to an unlawful motive was overwhelming, saying the Justice Department “has struggled — without success — to identify a single plausible investigatory justification” for the subpoenas. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.

In a statement following the ruling, Walz called it “a victory for the rule of law and our democracy.” He went on to say, “The U.S. Justice Department is pursuing criminal investigations into the President’s political opponents. This case was just one example of that, but we are seeing daily reminders of this administration’s lawlessness — in Minnesota and around the country. We all must continue to seek justice and uphold the rule of law.”

Attorney General Ellison said “it should disturb every American that Donald Trump is weaponizing the criminal justice system against people he disagrees with.”

Mayor Her described the subpoenas as “a politically motivated retaliation against our city for lawfully standing up to ICE and fighting for our residents.”

Mayor Frey said the investigation was “never about justice, law, and order, but the absence of it,” adding that “subpoenaing political opponents because they spoke on behalf of their constituents violates the core tenets of our democracy and human decency.” He also pointed out that criticizing government action is not a crime, saying, “One of the defining strengths of our democracy is the ability to challenge those in power without fear of retribution. Elected officials have both the right and the responsibility to speak honestly about how government decisions affect the people they serve.”

This ruling is part of a broader pattern of federal courts pushing back against the Justice Department’s efforts to aggressively advance the Trump administration’s agenda. Over the past year, judges have dismissed indictments against two high-profile Trump critics — former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James — and grand juries have repeatedly declined to return indictments the Justice Department sought.

Critics argue these developments reflect growing concerns that the Justice Department, which is supposed to operate independently of the White House, has been politicized under the current administration.

Separately, Vice President JD Vance has called on the Justice Department to investigate Walz and Ellison over allegations that they failed to prevent widespread social services fraud. The department has not indicated whether it will open such an investigation. Both Walz and Ellison have dismissed those allegations as politically motivated and defended their anti-fraud efforts in Minnesota.

Legal battles connected to the immigration surge continue on other fronts as well. The federal government has argued that Minnesota prosecutors lack jurisdiction to investigate federal officers. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty filed a lawsuit in March seeking access to evidence in the Good and Pretti killings, accusing the administration of withholding materials from state investigators. Moriarty has also pursued criminal charges against ICE officers in two other incidents, including the nonfatal shooting of a Venezuelan man, and has indicated her office is looking into several additional cases.

The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on Washington’s National Mall is being prepared to be drained once more — just weeks after a $14.7 million renovation project was completed — as President Donald Trump issues stern warnings to those accused of vandalizing the historic landmark.

According to Washington-based WTOP Radio, the DC Water authority has issued a permit to drain the 2,000-foot-long rectangular pool. The company that performed the renovation work says it will address the needed repairs under its warranty obligations.

Neither the National Park Service nor DC Water responded to requests for comment.

Peeling paint and algae growth became noticeable in the pool shortly after President Trump announced the renovation complete on June 6. Questions have been raised about the no-bid contract used to recoat the pool ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary celebrations scheduled for next month, along with concerns about the ducks that inhabit the water.

Trump has attributed the pool’s deteriorating condition to vandals, though he has not offered evidence to support that claim. On Monday, he reinforced a weekend threat made by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to pursue criminal charges against those accused of attempting to damage the pool.

“Please remember that there is a 10-year prison sentence for the destruction, or even the attempted destruction, of such things — Which will be fully enforced!” Trump stated in a social media post.

Trump indicated that multiple arrests have already taken place. Media reports citing an administration official say at least five individuals have been arrested — including a former Olympian who has publicly denied the accusations — while five others received citations. The U.S. Park Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Virginia-based Atlantic Industrial Coatings, the firm responsible for the renovation, released a statement Sunday saying the sections requiring repair represent “a very small part of the massive 7-acre project, and do not indicate a failure of the liner.”

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. has put a stop to the Trump administration’s plan to use a redesigned immigration database to check the accuracy of voter registration records across the country, delivering a setback to President Donald Trump’s push to expand federal involvement in elections before the November midterms.

The Department of Homeland Security had reworked one of its systems — known as SAVE — last year following a Trump executive order directing state and local governments to be able to verify the immigration and citizenship status of voters. The overhaul allowed users to conduct bulk searches of records, a significant change from how the system previously operated.

U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan issued a 75-page ruling Monday, ruling in favor of voting rights and privacy groups who contended that the changes to SAVE made it less reliable and put eligible voters at risk of being wrongly removed from the rolls. Judge Sooknanan was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden.

The ruling arrives at a politically charged moment, with Trump’s Republican Party fighting hard to hold onto control of both chambers of Congress in the November 3 midterm elections.

Trump and his supporters have repeatedly claimed that states are failing to stop voter fraud — a claim that state-level audits and academic research have consistently found to be unsupported, given how rarely fraud actually occurs. Trump has also continued to falsely claim that fraudulent activity cost him the 2020 presidential election.

Opponents of the voter roll verification push argue that the effort is less about protecting election integrity and more about political strategy — specifically, reducing the number of voters in ways that could disadvantage Democratic-leaning citizens.

California has taken the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to court, filing a lawsuit Monday after the federal agency sent several of the state’s landmark vehicle emissions waivers to the Republican-controlled Congress earlier this month, opening the door to their potential repeal.

The EPA argued that California’s environmental regulation waivers — approved under previous Democratic administrations through the Clean Air Act — were required to be submitted to lawmakers under the Congressional Review Act. California pushed back hard, calling the move unlawful and asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to put a stop to it.

State officials said the EPA was essentially trying to redefine what a waiver is, accusing the agency of attempting to “wave a magic wand” and reclassify the waiver as a rule subject to congressional action.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta condemned the EPA’s decision in strong terms. “These latest illegal actions would mean more pollution, poorer air quality, more market uncertainty, and greater health risks for communities already overburdened by emissions,” Bonta said. He noted that California has received more than 75 such waivers for various environmental measures over the years.

The EPA had not offered any comment in response to the lawsuit as of Monday.

The current administration has pursued multiple strategies to strip California of its authority to mandate cleaner vehicles and push for greater electric vehicle adoption. The EPA has also moved to make it easier for automakers to sell more gasoline-powered vehicles while increasing the financial burden on consumers purchasing electric vehicles.

The four waivers now under congressional scrutiny gave California the power to set its own emissions standards for passenger vehicles, trucks, and lawn and garden equipment. Those standards have pushed manufacturers to develop cleaner, electric alternatives in order to reduce overall emissions.

California’s current vehicle emissions framework was approved in 2022 during the Biden administration. The standards require automakers to progressively increase the share of electric vehicles they sell while meeting tighter restrictions on tailpipe pollution — rules that are considerably more stringent than current federal standards.

The current administration has signaled plans to roll back federal fuel economy requirements. Legislation signed last year overturned California’s goal of phasing out the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035. California maintains that the long-term fuel savings for consumers under its rules far outweigh the higher upfront cost of electric vehicles.

Congress moved to cancel California’s authority to ban new gas-powered vehicles after 2035 following lobbying efforts by major automakers including Toyota and GM, who sought relief from the state’s strict emissions rules. That action came after the EPA had already submitted that particular waiver to Congress for review. Many Democratic lawmakers have argued that such waivers are not eligible for review under the Congressional Review Act, and California has separately challenged that waiver submission as well.

A federal judge in Washington has turned down a request to remove senior Justice Department officials from the case against a man charged with attempting to kill President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Cole Tomas Allen had argued that having Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and District of Columbia U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro involved in his prosecution posed a conflict of interest, since both were among the administration officials attending the April dinner. Allen’s legal team also pointed to the close personal friendship between Pirro, a former Fox News commentator, and the president as a reason for concern.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden rejected those arguments, ruling that neither the officials’ presence at the dinner nor Pirro’s relationship with the president was sufficient grounds to remove them from the case. McFadden pointed out that Allen is not accused of targeting Blanche or Pirro specifically, and there is no indication he even knew they would be at the event.

“They are unlikely to be trial witnesses, nor do they meet the legal definition of victims,” McFadden wrote in his ruling. McFadden himself was nominated to the federal bench by Trump.

Allen faces a range of serious charges, including assaulting a federal official with a deadly weapon and attempted assassination of the president. He has entered a not guilty plea. If convicted on the attempted assassination charge alone, he could face a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Prosecutors also allege that Allen fired a shotgun at a Secret Service agent during the incident, which brought an abrupt and early end to one of Washington’s most prominent annual gatherings. A Secret Service officer who was struck once in a bullet-resistant vest returned fire five times but did not hit anyone. Allen, who is from Torrance, California, was injured during the confrontation but was not shot.

A federal judge has struck down the Trump administration’s attempt to compel several Minnesota officials — including the state’s Democratic governor — to turn over information tied to a Justice Department immigration investigation, according to a court order released publicly on Monday.

U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz, based in Minnesota, issued the ruling, dealing a significant blow to a federal probe that was launched in January at the peak of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis.

The Justice Department had issued subpoenas to various state and local government offices in an effort to determine whether Democratic officials had broken the law by publicly opposing and resisting the administration’s large-scale immigration enforcement effort, which involved deploying thousands of agents to detain migrants accused of being in the country illegally.

The investigation centered on whether that public opposition crossed a legal line and amounted to criminal interference with federal immigration enforcement activities.

Disney-owned ABC announced Monday that it is rolling out an on-air campaign asking viewers to stand with the network as it navigates two separate disputes with the U.S. government.

The Federal Communications Commission moved in April to require ABC to undergo an early review of the broadcast licenses for its eight company-owned television stations. That action came after President Donald Trump pushed the regulatory agency to act against the network.

In a separate matter, the FCC has also opened an investigation into ABC’s daytime talk program “The View,” after determining that the show falls under federal equal time rules that apply to political candidates.

Vice President JD Vance announced Monday that peace negotiations with Iran have laid what he called a “good foundation for a successful final deal” to bring an end to the war that erupted at the close of February.

Vance made the remarks after he and Iran’s parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf concluded an extensive opening round of discussions in Switzerland, with the goal of reaching a permanent end to hostilities between the two nations.

“The final deal is the house,” Vance told reporters. “We set the foundation. We haven’t built the house, but we’ve laid a successful foundation to get to a good place for the American people.”

The vice president outlined four areas where the two sides had made headway during the initial Switzerland talks: establishing a system to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, coordinating a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, reaching an agreement on International Atomic Energy Agency inspections, and setting up a framework for the technical negotiations still ahead.

Vance also pushed back on the idea that the United States was forcing a deal on the region, even though the negotiations touch on the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah — without representatives from Israel or Lebanon at the table.

“This is a deal that the region has desperately asked the United States to put in place,” Vance said. “This region has been a basket case for a very long time.”

The vice president said he was heading back to Washington, but noted that American and Iranian “technical teams” would carry the talks forward. He said proper political oversight would be maintained from Washington as negotiators tackled complex issues, including how to monitor and handle nuclear material inside Iran.

“As much as this place is very beautiful, I can’t stay here for the next 60 days,” Vance told reporters.

Vance touted that Iran had agreed to welcome International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back into the country. However, Iran did not confirm that claim, and it was not immediately clear how significant a development it would be. Since the 12-day war between Israel and Iran in 2025, inspectors have visited the country, but Tehran has denied them access to the enrichment sites that were bombed by the U.S. — locations where highly enriched uranium is believed to remain buried.

Vance acknowledged that Iranian negotiators “did threaten to walk out” at one point during the talks, a reaction he linked to social media posts by President Donald Trump that had offended Iranian officials. Vance defended the president’s online remarks.

“What we told the Iranians yesterday is when you guys engage in what us millennials might call ‘trash talk,’ you can’t expect the president of the United States not to respond and not to correct the record,” Vance said.

He noted that Iran’s delegation ultimately stayed at the table, with their technical experts remaining in Switzerland.

“So, yes, there was a little bit of threatening, there was a little bit of whining,” Vance said. “But at the end of the day, the talks continued and we made great progress.”

Vance also said that Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and one of the lead U.S. negotiators, developed a proposal with Qatari officials under which Qatar would oversee a process where Iranian funds freed up through sanctions relief “would actually go to buy American soy, American corn and American wheat for the benefit of the Iranian people.” Iran has not confirmed this arrangement and does not currently have demand for U.S. agricultural products.

Vance added that U.S. negotiators had remained in constant communication with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and other regional leaders throughout the Switzerland talks. Some hardline members of Israel’s government have criticized Netanyahu for being left on the sidelines of the negotiations.

Separately, President Trump on Saturday escalated a public dispute with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, claiming she asked “over and over” for a photo with him at the recent Group of Seven summit and accusing Italy of failing to cooperate during the Iran war. The comments deepened a clash that began earlier in the week when Trump claimed in an interview with an Italian broadcaster that Meloni had “begged” for the photo at the G7 meeting in France — a claim Meloni called “completely fabricated.” The fallout led Italy’s foreign minister to cancel a planned visit to the United States.

“Italian Prime Minister Gigiorgia Meloni asked, over and over, for a picture with me during the G-7 meeting in France,” Trump wrote on his social media platform from Camp David, misspelling her first name in his initial post before later correcting it.

Meloni fired back, stating that “these constant, unprovoked attacks are senseless.”

Meanwhile, the Switzerland-based mediation effort, which also included officials from Qatar and Pakistan, got off to a rocky start Sunday before producing some agreements. Mediators from Qatar and Pakistan described the outcome as “encouraging progress,” pointing to the creation of a “de-confliction cell” to address the fighting in Lebanon and steps to keep the Strait of Hormuz — a critical route for global energy supplies — open and secure.

A newly released Gallup poll is shedding light on just how differently Republicans and Democrats view morality in America — and the results show a striking divide between the two parties.

When it comes to abortion, 73% of Democrats consider it morally acceptable, while only 18% of Republicans feel the same way. That’s a gap of 55 percentage points between the two parties on that single issue alone.

The divide is similarly wide when Americans were asked about sex outside of marriage. A large majority of Democrats — 83% — said they see nothing wrong with it morally. Among Republicans, that number drops to just 46%.

Perhaps the widest gap emerged on the topic of transgenderism. Six in ten Democrats, or 60%, said they view it as morally acceptable. On the Republican side, only 5% said the same — a difference of 55 percentage points.

The Gallup survey underscores just how far apart the two major political parties have drifted when it comes to social and moral values across a range of issues.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland Gov. Wes Moore is seeking the Democratic nomination for a second term as voters across the state cast ballots Tuesday in a primary covering federal, state and local offices. The election also features two closely watched Democratic congressional primaries that have drawn significant attention heading into the 2026 midterms.

The midterm contests are playing out with an eye already on 2028. Moore is running for reelection while speculation swirls about a potential presidential run. At the same time, competitive primaries across all eight of Maryland’s congressional districts could be among the last conducted under the current district boundaries, as state lawmakers weigh entering the national mid-decade redistricting debate with a new map that could eliminate Maryland’s only Republican congressional seat before the 2028 elections.

At the top of the ticket, Moore and Lt. Gov. Aruna Miller face a primary challenge from Eric Felber, a physician running alongside his running mate LaTrece Hawkins Lytes. In Maryland, gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial candidates run together on a joint ticket. Felber previously made an unsuccessful run against Democratic U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin in the 8th Congressional District primary in 2024.

Whichever Democratic ticket prevails will go on to face the winner of a nine-candidate Republican primary that includes former state Del. Dan Cox and his running mate, Rob Krop. Cox lost to Moore in the 2022 general election and made another unsuccessful bid in 2024 for the Republican nomination in the 6th Congressional District.

One of the most crowded races on the ballot is in the 5th Congressional District, where 24 Democrats are competing for the nomination to succeed former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who is stepping down after 23 terms in Congress. Notable candidates in the race include former Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker, health care business executive Quincy Bareebe, Prince George’s County state Del. Adrian Boafo, Prince George’s County Councilwoman Wala Blegay, and former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn.

Bareebe led all candidates in fundraising as of early June, with Dunn coming in second. Boafo has secured endorsements from Hoyer, Moore, and Democratic Sen. Angela Alsobrooks.

Dunn was on duty at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, when supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the building in an effort to prevent certification of his 2020 presidential election loss. Dunn previously ran in the 3rd Congressional District in 2024, finishing second in a 22-candidate Democratic primary field.

The 5th District encompasses all of Calvert, Charles and St. Mary’s counties in southern Maryland, though the majority of its voters are drawn from portions of Anne Arundel County and the heavily Democratic Prince George’s County.

In the 6th Congressional District, U.S. Rep. April McClain Delaney is seeking a second term but faces a formidable primary challenge from the man whose seat she now holds — former U.S. Rep. David Trone. Trone has loaned his own campaign $25 million. He gave up the 6th District seat to run in the 2024 U.S. Senate primary, where he spent $63 million of his personal funds and finished second behind Alsobrooks, who ultimately won the Senate seat.

Most voters in the 6th District live in Democratic-leaning Frederick County and heavily Democratic Montgomery County, though the district also takes in all of Garrett, Allegany and Washington counties in the strongly Republican western part of the state.

Moore and legislative allies had pushed to redraw Maryland’s congressional map in response to new Trump-backed redistricting efforts in several Republican-controlled states. That effort was blocked in mid-April by Democratic state Senate President Bill Ferguson, who argued the plan put existing Democratic-held seats in jeopardy.

However, following a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that led some Republican-controlled southern states to eliminate majority-Black congressional districts held by Democrats, Ferguson issued a statement saying “Maryland must respond as the ground shifts under us.” Lawmakers may revisit the redistricting question before the 2028 elections through a state constitutional amendment that could go before voters as early as November.

Here are key facts about Tuesday’s election: Polls close at 8 p.m. ET. The Associated Press will report vote totals and call winners in contested primaries for governor, U.S. House, state Senate, state House, and local offices in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties.

Only voters registered with a political party may participate in that party’s primary. Democrats cannot vote in the Republican primary and vice versa. Voters registered as independent or unaffiliated are not eligible to participate in either primary.

As of May 31, Maryland had approximately 4.6 million registered voters. That total includes roughly 2.2 million active registered Democrats, about 1 million active registered Republicans, and approximately 1 million active voters with no party affiliation. An additional 250,000 inactive registered voters are on the rolls, though the state does not break that group down by party.

During the 2022 gubernatorial primaries, about 671,000 registered Democrats and roughly 295,000 registered Republicans cast ballots — representing approximately 16% and 7% of registered voters at that time, respectively. Roughly 60% of Democratic primary votes and about 37% of Republican primary votes in 2022 were cast either early in person or by mail.

As of Wednesday, approximately 228,000 Democratic primary ballots and around 67,000 Republican primary ballots had already been submitted ahead of Tuesday’s election.

Early voting and mail ballots typically make up the first wave of results reported on election night. In the 2022 primary, the AP released its first results at 8:42 p.m. ET — 42 minutes after polls closed — and the final update of the night came at 4:15 a.m. ET with about 56% of total votes counted.

In Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, the state’s two most populous, initial results in 2022 came in at 9:05 p.m. ET. Montgomery County’s last election night update came at 2:25 a.m. ET with roughly half the votes tallied, while Prince George’s County’s final update was at 3:05 p.m. ET with about 59% counted.

The AP does not make projections and will only declare a winner once it has determined that no remaining uncounted votes could allow a trailing candidate to close the gap. If a race remains uncalled, the AP will continue to report on any significant developments, including candidate concessions or victory declarations, while making clear that no winner has been officially declared.

Maryland does not conduct automatic recounts. A losing candidate may request and pay for a recount if the margin between the top two finishers is 5% or less of the combined votes cast for those two candidates. The AP may still call a winner in a race subject to a potential recount if the lead is determined to be too large to be overcome.

As of Tuesday, 133 days remain until the 2026 midterm elections.

Utah voters are heading to the polls Tuesday to select their party nominees for Congress, doing so for the first time under a newly redrawn district map that carved out a Salt Lake City-based district favorable to Democrats — and threw a wrench into the reelection strategies of the state’s entirely Republican congressional delegation.

The revised congressional boundaries have the potential to produce an additional Democratic seat in the U.S. House, where Republicans currently hold a narrow majority. That majority is already at risk in the 2026 midterm elections, when the party holding the White House historically tends to lose congressional seats.

Utah adopted the new map despite opposition from the Republican-controlled state Legislature. A state court had struck down the lawmakers’ 2021 redistricting plan, which had split Salt Lake City — a Democratic stronghold — among four Republican-leaning congressional districts. The court found that the GOP-drawn map violated a 2018 voter-approved measure aimed at limiting partisan influence in the redistricting process. The Utah Supreme Court upheld that ruling in February, and a Republican-backed effort supported by President Donald Trump to repeal the 2018 anti-gerrymandering law fell short of making the November ballot. The Utah shake-up comes even as Republicans are positioned to gain seats through mid-decade redistricting efforts in other states, also at Trump’s urging.

In the newly created Salt Lake City-based 1st Congressional District, former Salt Lake City mayor and former Democratic U.S. Rep. Ben McAdams is attempting a political comeback in a district far more favorable to Democrats than the one he held for a single term at the end of the last decade. McAdams faces state Sen. Nate Blouin, tax attorney Michael Farrell, and former American Heart Association lobbyist and former TikTok and Meta policy analyst Liban Mohamed in the Democratic primary. As of early June, McAdams had raised nearly three times as much as Blouin overall and far outpaced the rest of the field in cash on hand. On the Republican side, Riley Owen is running without opposition. Had this district existed during the 2024 presidential election, former Vice President Kamala Harris would have won it with 60% of the vote.

The new 2nd Congressional District in northwest Utah is the least altered of the four districts, closely mirroring the current 1st Congressional District. Republican U.S. Rep. Blake Moore, who currently represents the 1st District, is seeking a fourth term but faces a strong primary challenge from state Rep. Karianne Lisonbee. At the April state party convention, Lisonbee beat Moore by nearly a two-to-one margin among delegates, though Moore secured a place on the primary ballot through a signature petition drive. Lisonbee has taken aim at Moore for co-chairing the “Better Boundaries” committee that helped pass the 2018 redistricting law, which many Utah Republicans blame for costing their party a congressional seat.

In the sprawling new 3rd Congressional District, which covers southern and eastern Utah, Republican U.S. Rep. Celeste Maloy is fighting off a primary challenge from former state Rep. Phil Lyman as she seeks her second full term. Maloy currently represents the 2nd Congressional District, which overlaps with the new 3rd District in southwestern Utah, but much of the new district along the Colorado border is unfamiliar political territory for her. Maloy narrowly edged out Lyman at the April state convention after two rounds of voting, but the margin wasn’t wide enough to keep him off the primary ballot.

In the new 4th Congressional District, Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Kennedy faces no opposition for renomination. The district largely overlaps with the western portion of Maloy’s current 2nd District — not the eastern half he has represented since 2025. Republican U.S. Rep. Burgess Owens, who currently represents the 4th District in central Utah, chose not to run for reelection. President Trump has endorsed all three Republican incumbents seeking to return to Congress.

Roughly half of Utah’s 29 state Senate seats and all 75 state House seats are also on the ballot in 2026. Republicans hold commanding supermajorities in both chambers.

Polls close at 8 p.m. Mountain Time, or 10 p.m. Eastern Time. The Associated Press will provide results and declare winners in contested primaries for U.S. House, state Senate, state House, and state Board of Education races.

Any registered voter in Utah may participate in the Democratic primary regardless of party affiliation. Only registered Republicans may vote in the Republican primary. Eligible voters may register in person at the polls during early voting or on Election Day. Voters with no party affiliation may register as Republicans at the polls on Election Day to participate in the Republican primary.

As of June 16, Utah had approximately 2.1 million registered voters, including roughly 1 million registered Republicans, about 297,000 registered Democrats, and around 622,000 voters with no party affiliation. In the 2024 Republican state primary, about 427,000 votes were cast. Democratic primary turnout has ranged from roughly 68,000 in the 2024 presidential primary to about 221,000 in the 2020 presidential primary.

Elections in Utah are conducted primarily by mail. As of last Thursday, approximately 163,000 ballots had already been returned, including about 127,000 from Republicans, 32,000 from Democrats, and roughly 2,900 from unaffiliated voters.

Most counties are expected to release a substantial portion of early and mail-in results in the first vote update of the evening. However, in about two-thirds of counties, advance voting results are released alongside Election Day in-person results. In the 2024 state primary, the AP reported its first results at 10:03 p.m. ET — three minutes after polls closed. The final update that night came at 2:07 a.m. ET, with about 74% of votes tallied. The count surpassed 90% two days after Election Day.

The AP will declare a winner only when it determines there is no remaining path for a trailing candidate to overcome the gap. Recounts in Utah are automatic only in the case of a tied vote. A losing candidate may request a recount if the margin is 0.25% of the total vote or less. Tuesday marks 133 days until the 2026 midterm elections.

South Carolina voters are heading to the polls Tuesday for a primary runoff election that will settle several key nominations, most notably the Republican race for governor.

The two candidates facing off in the GOP gubernatorial runoff are two-term Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and state Attorney General Alan Wilson, who is the son of Republican U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson. In a surprise move, President Donald Trump announced Friday that he is endorsing both candidates ahead of the runoff contest.

“I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other,” Trump wrote in a Friday evening social media post. Trump had previously backed Evette during the June 9 primary, when she and Wilson were among six candidates competing for the nomination.

Trump’s endorsements have generally translated into strong performances at the polls in 2026, though recent results suggest his backing no longer guarantees a win. His picks for governor in Iowa and Georgia both lost their nomination races, and his choice for Oklahoma governor was pushed into a runoff after finishing second in the June 16 primary.

Evette entered the runoff with a narrow lead after receiving 28.9% of the primary vote, compared to 26.1% for Wilson. U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman finished third with 17.1%.

Evette performed best in the Pee Dee region in the northeastern part of the state, near the North Carolina border and the Atlantic coast — an area that strongly backed Trump in 2024 and represented roughly 15% of the primary vote. Wilson’s strongest support came from the central part of the state, which includes Richland County, home to the state capital of Columbia, and extends southwest to the Georgia border, encompassing several majority Black counties. That region accounted for about 19% of the primary vote and was more evenly split between Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris in 2024.

The Upcountry region — which includes some of the state’s most populated counties such as Greenville, Spartanburg, and Anderson — is expected to be a major battleground in the runoff. Evette led in that area during the primary, though her margin over third-place finisher Norman was less than 2 percentage points.

Whoever wins the Republican nomination will go on to face Democratic state Rep. Jermaine Johnson in November. Johnson secured the Democratic nomination outright in the primary. Democrats have not won the South Carolina governorship since 1998.

The next governor will take over from term-limited Republican Gov. Henry McMaster, who has endorsed Evette. The new governor is also expected to play a significant role in the early stages of the 2028 presidential race, as South Carolina is anticipated to again hold first-in-the-South presidential primaries.

Also on the ballot Tuesday are runoff races in the 1st Congressional District, the seat previously held by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace. Mace, a former Trump ally who drew the president’s ire after calling for the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, finished a distant fifth in the gubernatorial primary. Both the Republican and Democratic primaries to fill her former seat resulted in runoffs.

In the Republican runoff for that seat, Charleston County Councilwoman Jenny Costa Honeycutt faces state Rep. Mark Smith. Honeycutt led Smith by 4 percentage points in the primary. On the Democratic side, former Hilton Head Island general counsel and U.S. Coast Guard veteran Mac Deford faces retired Navy Vice Admiral and former Navy Reserve Chief Nancy Lacore. Lacore outpaced Deford by nearly 8 points in the primary. Trump carried the 1st Congressional District in 2024 with about 56% of the vote, compared to roughly 43% for Harris.

Polls in South Carolina close at 7 p.m. ET. Results are expected to begin coming in around 7:20 p.m., based on the timeline from the June 9 primary, when nearly all vote totals were counted by 12:19 a.m.

As of Saturday, South Carolina had approximately 3.4 million registered voters. Voters in the state do not register by party. About 473,000 people cast ballots in the June 9 Republican gubernatorial primary.

Voters who participated in a partisan primary on June 9 are only eligible to vote in the runoff of the same party. Registered voters who sat out the June 9 primary may vote in either party’s runoff on Tuesday.

Turnout in runoff elections typically drops compared to the original primary. In the last Republican gubernatorial runoff in 2018, turnout fell about 7% from the primary. The drop-off was roughly 14% in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial runoff. Statewide runoffs in 2022 saw even steeper declines, with Republican runoff turnout for state school superintendent falling 47% and Democratic U.S. Senate runoff turnout dropping 74%.

About 37,000 ballots had already been cast as of Wednesday, the midpoint of the state’s two-day early voting period. Nearly all of South Carolina’s 46 counties report early in-person and mail ballot results in the first vote update of the night, typically before releasing Election Day totals.

If the margin between the top two finishers is 1% or less of total votes cast, a recount is automatically triggered under South Carolina law. Tuesday’s runoff falls 133 days before the 2026 midterm elections.

NEW YORK — Tuesday’s New York state primary is putting Democratic nomination fights for U.S. House seats front and center, even as most of the state’s top elected officials won’t appear on the ballot.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani — himself not on the ballot — has become a central figure in the races by endorsing several candidates, including challengers taking on two sitting Democratic members of Congress.

Control of the U.S. House could hinge on New York’s congressional seats come November.

In New York City, hotly contested primaries in districts that have long leaned Democratic could help define what the party stands for, both in New York and nationally.

In the 10th Congressional District, covering Lower Manhattan and portions of Brooklyn, two-term incumbent Rep. Dan Golden is facing a serious challenge from former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander. Lander has secured endorsements from Mayor Mamdani and Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. Mamdani and Lander previously competed against each other in the mayoral race.

In the 13th Congressional District, which spans Upper Manhattan and parts of the Bronx, five-term incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat is being challenged by three candidates. Among them is doctoral student and political organizer Darializa Avila Chevalier, who also carries Mamdani’s endorsement.

In the 7th Congressional District, which straddles Brooklyn and Queens, longtime Rep. Nydia Velázquez is stepping down after 17 terms. She has thrown her support behind Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, but he faces a difficult contest against state Assemblywoman Claire Valdez, who has the backing of both Mamdani and Sanders.

Eight Democrats are vying in Manhattan’s 12th Congressional District to fill the seat being vacated by retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler. The leading contenders are state Assemblymen Alex Bores and Micah Lasher, attorney and former Republican George Conway — a vocal Trump critic — and Kennedy family member Jack Schlossberg. Conway has raised the most money, but Lasher has endorsements from Nadler, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Just north of New York City in the 17th Congressional District, five Democrats are competing for the chance to challenge two-term Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, who faces no opposition for his party’s nomination. The Democratic field includes former White House counterterrorism official and Army combat veteran Cait Conley, Rockland County Legislator Beth Davidson, and Tarrytown Village Trustee Effie Phillips-Staley. As of early June, Conley leads in both fundraising and cash on hand, followed by Davidson, with Phillips-Staley a distant third.

This suburban swing district is one of Democrats’ top targets for a pickup. Democrat Kamala Harris narrowly won the district in 2024, performing best in Westchester County — the district’s largest and most city-adjacent county. Donald Trump carried Rockland, Putnam, and Dutchess counties by double-digit margins.

On Long Island, Democratic freshmen Reps. Tom Suozzi and Laura Gillen are defending their seats in the 3rd and 4th Congressional Districts, respectively, and both face primary opposition.

In the sprawling 21st Congressional District in upstate New York, Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik is not running for a seventh term after her bid for governor fell apart and her nomination for United Nations Ambassador was withdrawn. State Assemblyman Robert Smullen has the support of local party leaders to take her place, while business owner Anthony Constantino has received an endorsement from Trump.

The only statewide Democratic contest on Tuesday’s ballot is the primary for state comptroller, where five-term incumbent Tom DiNapoli is facing his first primary challenge in nearly 20 years in office.

Gov. Hochul and state Attorney General Letitia James are both running for reelection but are unopposed for their party’s nominations, meaning they won’t appear on primary ballots. The same applies to their Republican opponents, Bruce Blakeman and Saritha Komatireddy. Under New York state law, primaries are not held when only one candidate is seeking a party’s nomination.

Voters will also weigh in on contested primaries for state Senate and state Assembly seats. All 63 state Senate seats and all 150 state Assembly seats are on the line in 2026. Democrats currently hold roughly a two-to-one advantage over Republicans in both chambers.

Here are key facts and figures to know about Tuesday’s election:

Polls close at 9 p.m. ET.

The Associated Press will report vote totals and declare winners in contested primaries for U.S. House, state comptroller, state Senate, and state Assembly races.

Only voters registered with a political party may participate in that party’s primary. Democrats cannot vote in the Republican primary, and Republicans cannot vote in the Democratic primary. Voters registered as independent or unaffiliated are not eligible to participate in either primary.

As of February 20, New York had approximately 13.4 million registered voters. That includes around 6.4 million registered Democrats, about 3 million registered Republicans, and roughly 3.4 million voters with no party affiliation.

In the 2022 primaries for governor, approximately 899,000 Democratic primary votes and 451,000 Republican primary votes were cast.

About 20% of the 2022 primary vote came through early in-person voting or mail ballots. That figure climbed to roughly 39% during the 2024 presidential primaries.

As of last Wednesday, approximately 107,000 ballots had already been submitted ahead of Tuesday’s election.

New York counties and New York City typically release nearly all results from early and mail voting in the first batch of returns for the night, often before any Election Day in-person votes are reported.

In the 2022 primary, the AP first reported results at 9:04 p.m. ET — just four minutes after polls closed. The final vote update that night came at 3:11 a.m. ET, with about 95% of ballots counted.

The AP does not make projections. A winner will only be declared when it is mathematically impossible for a trailing candidate to catch up. If a race remains uncalled, the AP will continue reporting on significant developments — such as a candidate conceding or claiming victory — while making clear that no winner has been officially declared.

In New York, an automatic recount kicks in for races where more than 1 million votes are cast if the winning margin is fewer than 5,000 votes. In smaller races, a recount is triggered if the margin is 20 votes or fewer, or 0.5% or less of total votes cast. The AP may still call a winner in a recount-eligible race if the lead is large enough that neither a recount nor a legal challenge could change the result.

As of Tuesday, there are 133 days remaining until the 2026 midterm elections.

President Trump is calling for the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall to be drained again, citing what he says was vandalism that damaged the landmark following a recent costly renovation and repainting effort.

The president made the claim without offering any supporting evidence to back up the allegation of vandal-related damage.

Monday marked the final full day of campaigning ahead of New York’s congressional primary, where a rising progressive movement is squaring off against the Democratic establishment in several high-profile races.

The contests have emerged as a measure of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s political reach — a test of whether the young democratic socialist can channel the momentum from his mayoral campaign into reshaping the city’s representation in Congress.

Mamdani has thrown his weight behind three House candidates, appearing in campaign videos and co-hosting a rally last week alongside U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders to energize support for his endorsed picks ahead of the vote.

“The party of the past will not be what leads us into the future. We need a Democratic Party with backbone,” Mamdani declared on the campaign trail.

In a separate race drawing considerable attention, Jack Schlossberg — the 33-year-old grandson of former President John F. Kennedy — is banking on his famous family name and a large social media following to win a congressional seat representing part of Manhattan.

Schlossberg faces a competitive field, however. Among his opponents are Alex Bores, a state Assembly member who has become a flashpoint in a big-money battle involving Silicon Valley over his push to regulate artificial intelligence, and Micah Lasher, also a state Assembly member, who brings extensive New York government experience and the backing of many of the state’s top Democratic leaders. Attorney George Conway, once married to a prominent Trump adviser before becoming a vocal critic of the former president, is also running in the contest.

In the campaign’s closing days, Schlossberg appeared at a rally with David Letterman, the former longtime host of “The Late Show with David Letterman,” while his mother, Caroline Kennedy, recorded a campaign advertisement on his behalf. Lasher took to the streets to connect with voters directly, and Bores released an ad highlighting the risks of artificial intelligence while drawing attention to the millions of dollars tech industry giants are pouring in to stop his campaign.

Mamdani has stayed out of that particular race, choosing instead to focus his energy on three other congressional contests — two of which involve sitting members of Congress facing serious challenges.

Darializa Avila Chevalier, a democratic socialist whose campaign has gained momentum with the mayor’s endorsement, is taking on U.S. Rep. Adriano Espaillat. Espaillat made history as the first Dominican American elected to Congress and represents a district covering northern Manhattan and a portion of the Bronx.

Espaillat has attempted to paint Avila Chevalier as unfit for office by highlighting inflammatory social media posts she made in her 20s. During a recent debate, Avila Chevalier acknowledged the posts and expressed regret, offering an apology specifically for one offensive comment she made about former Vice President Kamala Harris.

Former city Comptroller Brad Lander has also earned Mamdani’s backing as he seeks to unseat fellow Democrat U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman. Lander was spotted in the crowd at Thursday’s City Hall celebration honoring the Knicks’ NBA championship and has leaned into his relationship with the mayor throughout the campaign. Goldman, who chose not to endorse Mamdani during the mayoral race, has focused instead on touting his record of accomplishments in Congress.

Rounding out Mamdani’s endorsed slate is Claire Valdez, a former state Assembly colleague and democratic socialist ally. Valdez is competing against Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso for the seat being vacated by retiring U.S. Rep. Nydia Velazquez. Both Valdez and Reynoso hold progressive views and share much common ground on policy, though Valdez has positioned herself as a potential partner for Mamdani once in Washington.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro declared Sunday that those responsible for vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on Washington’s National Mall will face the full weight of the criminal justice system.

The announcement comes amid ongoing problems with the iconic 2,000-foot-long rectangular pool, which sits on the National Mall. President Donald Trump declared the pool’s $14.7 million renovation complete on June 6, but within less than two weeks, the new blue paint began visibly peeling off the surface.

Pirro confirmed that vandalism citations have already been issued, and she emphasized that even minor offenses must be addressed to maintain safety in the nation’s capital. “Anyone who is in a position of vandalizing or attempting to vandalize will face the criminal justice system in D.C.,” she told Fox News’ ‘Sunday Briefing’ program.

On Saturday, Trump alleged — without offering supporting evidence — that vandals had dumped corrosive chemicals into the pool. The pool has also developed an algae bloom, turning the water a greenish color. Pirro warned that individuals found to have introduced algae-promoting substances into the pool could face more serious criminal charges.

Earlier this week, National Park Service workers treated the algae problem by adding hydrogen peroxide to the water.

Trump first raised the vandalism allegations on Friday in a social media post, where he also stated that 75% of the algae had been eliminated. In that same post, he accused ABC News journalist Jonathan Karl of “trying to rip the rubber off of the surface” of the pool. ABC News did not immediately provide a response when asked for comment.

Veteran journalist Don Gonyea found himself reflecting on decades of presidential history this week as he reported on the opening of the Barack Obama Presidential Center in Chicago.

The launch of the center prompted Gonyea to look back on the various presidential library openings he has had the opportunity to cover throughout his long career in journalism.

From one presidential milestone to the next, Gonyea has built a career defined by a close-up view of American political history — and the Obama Presidential Center opening in Chicago added yet another chapter to that storied record.

President Donald Trump took to Truth Social on Saturday to clarify the status of shipping tolls through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical international waterway, amid an ongoing 60-day ceasefire agreement with Iran.

According to Trump, no fees will be charged to vessels passing through the strait during the ceasefire window — and that policy would continue beyond the 60-day period, with one significant condition attached.

“There will be NO TOLLS in the Hormuz Strait for 60 days during the Cease Fire Period, and there will be NO TOLLS after the 60 day period has expired, unless they are imposed by and for the United States of America, should the deal not be completed, for services rendered as the Guardian Angel to the countries of the Middle East for purposes of both past, present, and future reimbursement of costs,” Trump wrote in the post.

In other words, if peace negotiations ultimately collapse and no final agreement is reached, the U.S. could choose to impose its own tolls on the waterway as a form of compensation for what Trump described as America’s protective role in the region.

WASHINGTON — Washington’s Reflecting Pool is showing serious signs of wear following a renovation ordered by President Trump, and now the president is suggesting the damage was done on purpose — though he has provided nothing to back that up.

Late Friday night, Trump took to his social media platform to raise the alarm. “We’ve had some real problems with Vandalism at the beautiful Reflecting Pool,” he wrote. “Just like three days ago, they destroyed the grass outside of the Pool, they’ve also done everything possible to hurt the inside surface that was just installed.” No supporting details accompanied the post.

The agencies responsible for maintaining and policing the National Mall — the U.S. Park Police, National Park Service, and Interior Department — had not responded to media requests for comment as of the time of this report.

According to a report from The Washington Post, Park Police did arrest an individual on Friday who was allegedly peeling paint from the pool. However, that single incident does not account for the widespread algae growth turning the water green or the large sections of blue paint that have separated from the pool’s floor.

Trump pressed further on Truth Social, drawing a comparison to another recent incident at the National Mall. “No different than the chemicals that were used on the National Mall, they used something similar in the Reflecting Pool to try to destroy and demean our beautiful work,” he posted.

That comment referred to a discovery made the previous week, when large numbers — “86 47” — were found etched into discolored grass on the National Mall. Authorities said the markings may have been intended as a threat toward Trump, who serves as the 47th president. The number 86 is commonly used as slang for eliminating or getting rid of something. An investigation into that incident is ongoing.

Trump’s remarks came after days of public criticism over the pool’s condition. He had made the renovation a priority, spending more than $14 million to spruce up the landmark ahead of the America 250 celebrations. Shortly after the project wrapped up, an algae bloom turned the water back to a murky green — the very color Trump had tried to eliminate by having the pool’s bottom painted what he called “American flag blue.”

Workers then treated the water with chemicals to combat the algae. The result: large chunks of that blue paint have now fallen away, leaving the pool’s rocky bottom exposed for all to see.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump escalated his public clash with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Saturday, asserting that she sought a photo with him “over and over” at the recent Group of Seven summit and criticizing what he described as Italy’s lack of cooperation during the Iran war.

The conflict began earlier this week when Trump, in an interview with an Italian television network, claimed that Meloni “begged” for the photo during the G7 gathering held in France. Meloni responded sharply, calling that account “completely fabricated.” The fallout from the dispute prompted Italy’s foreign minister to call off a scheduled trip to the United States, with Meloni’s government rallying to her defense.

“Italian Prime Minister Gigiorgia Meloni asked, over and over, for a picture with me during the G-7 meeting in France,” Trump wrote on his social media platform from Camp David, where he was spending the weekend. He initially misspelled her first name in the post, though he later issued a correction.

Trump went further, writing: “She is doing poorly in Italy with her level of popularity, possibly because she turned down the United States of America, a Country that truly loves and protects Italy, when it came to denying Iran from obtaining or developing a Nuclear Weapon (But so did NATO, for that matter!).”

Trump’s original comments were broadcast Friday on the La7 network. A reporter had asked him about Ukraine, but Trump shifted the conversation to Meloni and brought up the photo claim on his own. According to La7, Trump said he was not required to take the picture but felt sorry for her and agreed to it. The network posted a dubbed version of the exchange online, though the original English audio was not made available.

In his social media post, Trump also took aim at Meloni for not permitting the U.S. to use Italian airstrips or runways during the Iran war, despite the U.S. being among the top defense spenders within NATO. This is a recurring grievance Trump has raised about the military alliance — one he also brought up during his White House meeting Wednesday with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, ahead of next month’s NATO summit in Turkey.

Italy, which serves as a critical logistics base for the United States, declined in March to allow American bombers bound for the Middle East to use a base in Sicily without first obtaining parliamentary approval. Trump voiced frustration over that decision and on Saturday suggested that Meloni “wants to be friends again” following the initial agreement between the U.S. and Iran to bring the war to a close.

A year after a gunman took the lives of Minnesota state Sen. Melissa Hortman and her husband, the state is pausing to honor their memory.

The somber anniversary has prompted reflection from fellow lawmakers, including another state senator who was among those targeted in the same attack.

WASHINGTON — Even as the Kennedy Center explores alternatives to a full two-year shutdown that a federal judge stopped last month, its management is not committing to scheduling new performances or rebuilding its staff.

In a court filing submitted Friday, attorneys for the Kennedy Center stated that the institution intends to “maintain an operational model” following July 5 — the date originally set for the venue to close for renovations. Under that arrangement, the public areas of the building would remain open, but the performance stages could go largely unused.

“The Court’s order did not affirmatively require the Board to reschedule programming that had previously been cancelled or to seek new programming,” the attorneys wrote in the filing.

The Kennedy Center was pushed to reconsider its plans after a May ruling by U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper struck down several significant changes made by a board dominated by allies of President Donald Trump. Cooper ruled that Trump’s name had been illegally added to the building and ordered its removal. He also blocked the closure and gave the institution’s leadership — along with Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, an ex-officio board member who brought the lawsuit — until Friday to submit a status update.

The venue indicated that management would present the board with multiple renovation scenarios to vote on. Those options include a complete closure, a partial closure allowing “some continued public access and limited programming in spaces unaffected” by construction work, or a third approach that would “consider a highly limited series of phased closures to address only the Center’s most serious infrastructure needs while scheduling and maintaining a full slate of programming.”

Attorneys for the Kennedy Center noted that the final recommendations have not yet been determined and that a board vote is expected sometime in mid-July.

Attorneys representing Beatty pushed back, arguing the Kennedy Center has not fully followed through on Judge Cooper’s order. While Trump’s name has been taken off the building, they raised concerns about a tarp that was placed over the areas where the lettering had been installed — with no apparent plans to remove it anytime soon.

Beatty’s legal team also contended that without taking steps to restore some level of programming, the Kennedy Center is essentially carrying out its planned shutdown in defiance of the court’s ruling.

“Having gutted staff and programming, Defendants believe they can sit back and allow their pre-planned shutdown to commence,” Beatty’s attorneys wrote in the filing.

A federal appeals court stepped in Friday to halt the Trump administration’s newest attempt to sharply reduce the workforce at the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, dealing another blow to the White House’s ongoing push to shrink the agency.

The ruling came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which was examining the administration’s challenge to a March 2025 injunction issued by a federal district court judge. That injunction had temporarily blocked the mass layoffs from moving forward.

The latest plan, submitted by the Justice Department in late March, called for cutting roughly two-thirds of the agency’s employees. This followed earlier proposals that sought to eliminate up to 90% of the bureau’s staff — plans that had already been turned back in court multiple times.

The Justice Department had urged the appeals court to allow the new round of cuts to proceed right away. It also asked that the case be returned to the district court judge with a 45-day window to revisit the original injunction.

The appeals court agreed to send the case back to the district court, but refused to allow the staff reductions to resume in the meantime and declined to impose any deadline on the lower court judge.

The CFPB was established by Congress in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to serve as a watchdog over consumer financial products and services.

President Trump and other top administration officials have pushed to abolish the agency entirely, arguing it places an unnecessary and politically motivated burden on businesses. Supporters of the bureau, including Democrats and consumer advocates, counter that undermining it would benefit financial industry players at the cost of everyday consumers.

With the most aggressive moves blocked by the courts, the administration has pursued other avenues to weaken the agency. In May, the CFPB announced it would require all employees to relocate to its Washington headquarters — a step widely seen as a way to encourage resignations. Earlier this month, Trump put forward a prominent critic of the bureau to serve as its next director.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — President Donald Trump reversed course Friday ahead of next week’s South Carolina Republican governor runoff, declaring that both candidates in the race — not solely Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, who received his endorsement before the June 9th primary — would make a solid pick.

Taking to his Truth Social platform, Trump offered praise for both Evette and state Attorney General Alan Wilson, writing: “Both have had amazing careers, and have been with me from the beginning. They are MAGA and America First all the way!”

The shift signals a strategic hedge by Trump during a primary season in which several of his handpicked candidates have come up short — a pattern of rare losses that has raised questions about his political influence as he moves into the latter half of his second term.

Trump had previously given Evette his “Complete and Total Endorsement.” He had also highlighted what he called a “BIG added plus” for her campaign — the possibility that Henry McMaster Jr., son of the current governor and a close Trump ally, might serve as her running mate. However, the 38-year-old attorney later announced he would not be seeking the position.

Evette responded to Friday’s development on social media, posting: “I was proud to come in first as President @realDonaldTrump’s endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”

Wilson also took to social media, writing: “I am honored to have the endorsement of President Donald J. Trump.” Shortly after, his campaign issued a news release listing the legal briefs he has filed in support of Trump’s policy positions, including on restricting birthright citizenship — an issue the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on.

Almost immediately following Trump’s dual-endorsement post, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott announced on social media that he was throwing his support behind Wilson, predicting the attorney general “will lead with humility, courage, and an optimistic vision for our state.”

A source familiar with Scott’s thinking, who was not authorized to speak on the record, told The Associated Press that the senator had been making calls on Wilson’s behalf, helping with fundraising efforts, and encouraging Trump to endorse Wilson’s candidacy.

Evette has described Trump’s backing as a “golden ticket” for Republicans running in South Carolina, though the results across other states have been uneven. Trump’s picks in both Iowa and Georgia lost their races this month.

This isn’t the first time Trump has taken a broad approach to endorsements. Just before a 2022 U.S. Senate primary in Missouri featuring former Gov. Eric Greitens and Attorney General Eric Schmitt, Trump simply endorsed “ERIC” — leaving both candidates to claim the nod. Schmitt ultimately won both the nomination and the Senate seat.

Arizona’s primary is still a month away, but Trump has been weighing in on that governor’s race for two years. In late 2024, he endorsed housing developer Karrin Taylor Robson, a move that upset several key allies in the state who distrust her deep ties to the party’s business wing. Then in April 2025, Trump added U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs to his list of endorsements — alongside Robson.

Trump’s 2026 primary endorsements have produced a mixed record overall. Biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy in Ohio and U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville in Alabama both received early Trump backing and went on to dominate their primaries. Similarly, former state Sen. Mike Mazzei, Trump’s pick in Oklahoma’s crowded governor race, advanced to an Aug. 25 runoff.

On the other hand, Trump’s preferred candidates have stumbled in several contests. In Georgia, billionaire healthcare executive Rick Jackson — backed by more than $100 million, much of it from his own personal wealth — defeated Trump’s endorsed candidate, Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, to claim the Republican nomination.

In Iowa, U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra, whom Trump endorsed on the same day as Evette, lost his governor’s race to businessman Zach Lahn.

A popular NPR podcast is diving into a complex and long-debated question: when the government harms people, who actually gets compensated?

NPR’s Code Switch is examining the issue of government-caused harm and the financial remedies — or lack thereof — that follow. The episode touches on the long-stalled effort to pass legislation that would study reparations for slavery, a bill that has failed to move forward in Congress for many years.

At the same time, the program points out a notable connection: the Trump administration’s so-called ‘anti-weaponization fund’ could potentially have drawn from a financial source that itself exists because of other reparations-related efforts — raising questions about how the government decides who deserves to be made whole after suffering at its hands.

The episode invites listeners to consider the broader principles at play when it comes to government accountability and who ultimately benefits from compensation programs rooted in past wrongs.

A Missouri judge this week struck down dozens of state laws limiting abortion access, determining that those laws conflict with a constitutional amendment that state voters approved in 2024.

Many of the restrictions had already been put on hold following an earlier preliminary court decision. But the latest ruling carries a significant new consequence: the two Planned Parenthood affiliates operating in Missouri announced they will begin prescribing abortion pills to patients in the state for the first time since 2018.

While the decision marks a clear win for abortion rights supporters, it is not the final chapter. Both an appeal and another ballot measure are expected to follow.

Jackson County Circuit Judge Jerri Zhang issued the ruling Thursday, several months after presiding over a 10-day trial on the matter earlier this year. She reviewed 40 separate state laws to determine whether they conflicted with the 2024 constitutional amendment, and in the majority of cases, she sided with abortion rights groups over the state government, which had argued the laws should remain in force.

Among the provisions she struck down was a rule requiring women seeking an abortion to visit a doctor in person on two separate occasions at least 72 hours apart. She also eliminated a requirement that the first dose of abortion pills — the most common method of obtaining an abortion — be taken in the presence of the prescribing physician.

However, the judge did uphold a requirement that patients visit a doctor in person to confirm how far along the pregnancy is and to rule out an ectopic pregnancy.

Missouri became the first state in the country to enforce a complete ban on abortions at all stages of pregnancy following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Even before that ban took effect, existing laws had already made abortion largely inaccessible for many women in the state.

In 2024, Missouri voters made the state the first to pass a constitutional amendment reversing such a ban, permitting abortions up until fetal viability — generally considered to be sometime after 21 weeks of pregnancy, though no fixed point is defined. The two Planned Parenthood affiliates in the state filed a lawsuit to dismantle remaining abortion restrictions shortly after voters approved that amendment.

Following this week’s ruling, Planned Parenthood said it would begin offering medication abortion appointments starting next week.

ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, Md. — President Donald Trump pulled back the curtain Friday on a revamped Air Force One — a massive Boeing 747 jet formerly belonging to Qatar that has been transformed into the official aircraft of the U.S. president.

The plane sports a dramatically different appearance compared to its predecessor. Gone is the pale blue exterior that has been associated with the presidential aircraft since the Kennedy administration. In its place, the belly of the aircraft is painted a deep navy blue, topped by a bold red stripe. The presidential seal is displayed on the left side of the plane — the side used for boarding — while a large American flag dominates the tail.

Standing inside a packed hangar at Andrews Air Force Base before a crowd of several hundred Air Force personnel, Trump praised the craftsmanship of the aircraft after stepping off the plane to the sounds of his signature song, “God Bless the USA.” “The workmanship of this plane is, when you see it, you won’t believe it,” Trump said.

The Qatar-gifted jet is being used as a so-called “bridge” aircraft — a temporary solution to transport the president while a brand-new fleet ordered directly from Boeing is completed. That delivery is currently expected in 2028.

The administration officially accepted the luxury jet from Qatar last year to serve as the presidential plane, though the move sparked ethical and legal questions about receiving such a high-value gift from a foreign government. Trump has previously stated he does not intend to use the Qatari jet after leaving office, saying it would eventually be donated to a future presidential library.

The Air Force has previously indicated that security upgrades to the aircraft would run under $400 million.

Trump’s push to redesign the presidential plane goes back to his first term in office, when he directed that an incoming fleet of jets adopt a color scheme closely resembling that of his personal aircraft. That plan was reversed in March 2023 by then-President Joe Biden, after an Air Force review found that the darker paint could drive up costs and slow down delivery of the new planes. When Trump returned to office, he reinstated his preferred design.

The Air Force announced earlier this year that other government jets used by top administration officials would also adopt the red, white, and navy color scheme.

An Air Force spokesperson, speaking anonymously to discuss sensitive planning details, told the Associated Press that the two existing presidential aircraft — known as VC-25As — will not be retired. They will remain active until the new Boeing jets, designated VC-25Bs, enter service. How the older planes will be used going forward remains unclear, but the spokesperson noted that both the Qatari aircraft and the VC-25As will remain available, with the Presidential Airlift Group choosing “the appropriate aircraft for each mission based on operational requirements.”

President Donald Trump says he has changed his view of artificial intelligence company Anthropic, telling “The Axios Show” in an interview published Friday that he may have considered the firm a national security threat a week ago — but does not anymore.

The dispute between the Trump administration and Anthropic involved foreign access to the company’s two most advanced AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5. After Trump directed Anthropic to block foreign nationals from using those models, the company shut down access to them for all users. Senior technical staff from Anthropic had been scheduled to meet with administration officials earlier this week to work through the issue.

Several key points emerged from the Axios interview:

When asked whether he considered Anthropic or its CEO, Dario Amodei, a threat to national security, Trump replied: “Well, not now, but a week ago, maybe.”

Trump told Axios that Amodei had responded to the administration’s export control directive “very quickly” and “responsibly.”

Trump and other G7 leaders also met with technology executives, including Amodei, during a summit held in France this week.

On the question of whether he might invoke emergency authority under the Defense Production Act against Anthropic, Trump did not rule it out. “I have the power to use a lot of things,” he said of the DPA. “But I’m not sure I have to do that.”

An Anthropic spokesperson responded to Trump’s comments, stating: “We are grateful to the administration for their ongoing partnership in working to get this matter resolved as quickly as possible. We remain committed to working alongside them towards our shared goals of protecting critical infrastructure and making sure the U.S. leads in AI.”

A federal judge on Friday turned down former President Joe Biden’s legal effort to stop the Trump administration from handing over audio recordings — made between Biden and a ghostwriter — to a conservative organization.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled that the public’s interest in accessing the material was greater than any privacy rights Biden could claim.

The recordings were gathered by special counsel Robert Hur during his investigation into whether Biden had improperly held onto classified documents from his time as a senator and vice president. After Hur chose not to bring charges against Biden, congressional Republicans pushed hard for access to the recordings.

During Biden’s time in office, his Democratic administration refused to hand over the 2017 recordings and their transcripts. That refusal led congressional Republicans to hold his attorney general, Merrick Garland, in contempt of Congress.

The current administration under President Donald Trump later authorized the release of those materials. In response, Biden filed a lawsuit last month to prevent the records from being turned over to a staffer at the conservative Heritage Foundation, who had formally submitted a request for them.

Biden argued the release would be a violation of his privacy, saying the recordings contained discussions of deeply personal subjects — including the death of his older son, Beau Biden. However, Judge Friedrich found that the administration had already redacted that sensitive content.

In her written ruling, Friedrich stated that the materials “contain no mention of highly sensitive topics like illness or death, nor do they mention any non-public persons, including members of Biden’s family.”

Representatives for Biden did not immediately offer a public response, but they did ask Friedrich to put the release on hold while they pursue an appeal. The Justice Department also did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

Judge Friedrich was originally nominated to the federal bench by Trump, a Republican, in 2017.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is heading to Camp David this weekend for a rare visit to the presidential retreat, marking only the second time he has returned to the Maryland getaway since taking office again last year.

A White House official confirmed that Trump will conduct both policy and political meetings during the stay. His family will be joining him for the weekend, which wraps up with Father’s Day on Sunday.

The visit comes at a tense moment in foreign policy. Trump is working to finalize a peace agreement to bring the war with Iran to a close, but the effort is facing pushback from critics who argue the preliminary deal is too generous toward Tehran.

Talks between the U.S. and Iran that had been scheduled to take place in Switzerland on Friday were called off after fighting flared up in Lebanon, throwing the timeline of negotiations into question. Those talks are considered critical to reopening the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping and bringing stability back to the Middle East.

Despite the setbacks, Trump took to Truth Social on Friday to stand by his approach, insisting that Iran came to the table from a weakened position.

“We didn’t meet out of desperation, Iran did. They are FINISHED!” Trump wrote. “We’ll play out the 60 days. They get no money, not ten cents!”

Trump’s last trip to Camp David was in June 2025, when he gathered top military and foreign policy advisers to talk through immigration protests in California, the situation with Iran, and the ongoing war in Gaza.

The wooded retreat, nestled in Maryland’s Catoctin Mountains, has not been a frequent stop for Trump. He has typically chosen to spend his weekends at properties he personally owns, such as Mar-a-Lago in Florida or his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

A Cabinet meeting that had been planned at Camp David in May was relocated to the White House after forecasters predicted poor weather.

The government-owned compound sits roughly 70 miles from Washington and has historically seen much heavier use from other presidents, who have relied on it both for rest and for high-level diplomatic and policy gatherings.

Maine Democrats have selected state auditor Matthew Dunlap as their candidate for the 2nd Congressional District, a closely contested race that could play a significant role in determining which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives come November, according to U.S. media projections released Friday.

The district, which is largely rural, is among a handful of competitive congressional seats expected to influence the balance of power in Washington. Democrats face a challenging landscape there, as the district has historically leaned toward Republican presidential candidates.

The seat became available after centrist Democrat Jared Golden announced he would not run for reelection. Golden had managed to hold the district multiple times despite its conservative-leaning voters.

Dunlap emerged from a Democratic primary field that also included state Senator Joe Baldacci, considered the most moderate of the group, along with former congressional aide Jordan Wood and social worker Paige Loud.

The Associated Press called the race 10 days after the June 9 Democratic primary — a timeline that reflects how Maine’s ranked-choice voting system can require additional time to determine a final outcome. Dunlap, who campaigned as a progressive, took to social media to celebrate the result.

“Today’s results tell us that people want real change and a better future,” Dunlap wrote.

In the general election, Dunlap will go up against Republican former Governor Paul LePage in what is shaping up to be a high-profile contest.

“Together, we’re going to defeat Paul LePage one more time and make sure he’s never on the ballot again. While we’re at it, we’re going to fight to advance policies that will actually help Mainers — like Medicare for All, affordable childcare, a lower cost of living, and stopping this illegal war in Iran,” Dunlap said.

WASHINGTON/LUCERNE, Switzerland — Vice President JD Vance is stepping into the most prominent international role of his career, serving as President Donald Trump’s lead negotiator in efforts to bring a lasting end to the three-month war with Iran — a position that could significantly influence his chances of one day occupying the Oval Office.

The United States and Iran reached a provisional peace agreement on Wednesday, halting active fighting but leaving several critical issues unresolved. Key questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, its backing of regional militant groups, and the strategically important Strait of Hormuz have been pushed to a 60-day negotiating window.

The stakes are enormous — for both sides in the conflict, for the wider Middle East, and for Vance’s own political future. Adding to the uncertainty, Vance cancelled a scheduled Thursday evening flight to Switzerland, where talks were set to begin. The White House said the U.S. delegation remains “prepared to depart at the first available opportunity.”

These rapidly unfolding events are happening at the same time Vance is promoting his new book, “Communion,” about his conversion to Catholicism. During his media appearances to discuss the book, he has also been positioning himself as the strongest advocate for the Iran agreement.

That push reached a high point Thursday at a White House news conference, where Vance outlined American hopes for a permanent peace deal and delivered what some observers described as one of the most pointed criticisms of Israel ever made by a senior U.S. official. He also brushed aside a question about whether he intends to run for president.

“If the Iranians don’t change their behavior, their military and their nuclear program is still destroyed,” Vance said. “If they do change their behavior, then they are going to have a transformative relationship with the Middle East, and the Middle East will have a transformative relationship with the people of Iran.”

Other Republicans have taken note of Vance’s elevated profile in the negotiations. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a prominent voice on foreign policy within the party, referred to Vance as the “architect” of the peace agreement and said the vice president should bring any final deal before the Senate for a vote.

President Trump made light of the situation Wednesday, suggesting the arrangement put Vance in a tough spot politically.

“If it works out, I’m going to take the credit. If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD!” Trump said with a laugh during a news conference at the G7 summit in Evian-les-Bains, France.

Representatives from Vance’s office declined to comment for this report.

Trump came into office promising to bring down costs for Americans and avoid prolonged military engagements in the Middle East. However, inflation has picked up pace, and he ordered strikes against Iran on February 28. Some of his Republican allies have accused Trump of making too many concessions to Iran in order to ease the economic strain caused by the conflict.

While Trump has characterized the provisional ceasefire as a complete military and diplomatic win, the current situation appears to fall short of his stated goals at the start of the war. Iran’s government remains in power, the country still holds ballistic missiles and a supply of highly enriched uranium, and it continues to support anti-Israel armed groups including Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Vance has found himself in the delicate position of defending the president’s choices while also trying to avoid being dragged down by Trump’s declining approval numbers. He has pointed to modest economic progress while acknowledging that “there’s a lot more work to do.”

“Have a little bit of faith in the president of the United States. The idea that he is going to strike a deal that’s bad for the American people, it’s preposterous,” Vance said Thursday.

Earlier in the week, speaking with conservative media host Megyn Kelly, Vance said stepping away from the Iran effort would be “a very immature way to approach the political process.” He also took aim at hawkish conservatives, accusing them of wanting to continue U.S. military strikes “until every bomb has been dropped, or until every Iranian is dead.”

Vance has consistently urged restraint and pushed for a diplomatic resolution, and he has emerged as a leading figure in a growing wing of the Republican Party that wants to pull back from large-scale U.S. military operations abroad.

Not everyone is supportive of his approach. Right-wing media figure Ben Shapiro said Thursday on Fox News: “In my opinion, the vice president — the chief negotiator on this project — has not well served the president.”

Trump’s decision to make Vance the public face of the agreement — rather than Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who traditionally serves as the nation’s top diplomat — has raised questions among administration allies about Rubio’s role in the process. A White House official, speaking anonymously to discuss internal conversations, said no one on Trump’s team objected to the provisional peace deal.

Rubio is also considered a potential candidate for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination, though neither he nor Vance has publicly stated plans to seek the presidency.

One person close to the White House, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Trump’s approach of rotating the spotlight among cabinet members is consistent with how he has managed his team throughout his second term.

“This back and forth is throwing people off, but Trump knows what he’s doing,” the person said. “He is literally conducting a tryout in real time.”

Throughout all of this, Vance has found ways to weave promotion of his book into nearly every media appearance, often with a sense of humor about it. When pressed on topics ranging from Iran to immigration to civil rights during an appearance on ABC’s “The View” on Tuesday, he quipped: “Let’s talk about the book — I’m here to sell books.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — The bond between President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans came dangerously close to breaking this week, as the president disrupted their efforts to confirm one of his own nominees and threatened to withhold his signature from a key surveillance law unless lawmakers agree to new conditions.

A late-night social media post from Trump on Wednesday announced he was putting the brakes on Jay Clayton’s nomination for national intelligence director — a bombshell that landed just hours before Clayton’s confirmation hearing was set to begin. The move deepened an already-fraying relationship between the White House and the Senate. Later that same day, Republican senators who had largely stayed quiet about the president’s handling of the Iran conflict broke their silence with pointed criticism of the deal he struck to end it.

“This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., wrote in a post on X.

The open hostility marks a dramatic shift from just a year ago, when Senate Republicans and Trump worked hand-in-hand to push through his sweeping package of tax and spending cuts. Back then, Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill rarely — if ever — spoke a word against the president, and they were counting on that legislative victory to fuel their midterm campaigns.

Now, with November drawing closer and Republicans scrambling to hold onto their congressional majorities, Trump has been throwing curveballs at Congress with unexpected demands and reversals, pushing several Republican senators to publicly rebuke him for the first time.

“I think somebody’s not dialing the president into the complexities of what he’s done here,” Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said Wednesday following the postponement of Clayton’s confirmation. “I mean, my God.”

The unraveling of what once appeared to be a rock-solid alliance between the executive and legislative branches also extends to policy. Trump seems to have largely set aside the broader Republican legislative agenda, instead zeroing in almost exclusively on his push for voting legislation that would require proof of citizenship — a measure that has virtually no path to passage. Meanwhile, he has asked Congress to fund portions of a White House ballroom renovation, accept a temporary intelligence director that few of them support, and hand over their authority on matters related to the Iran conflict.

The widening divide has brought much of the Senate’s work to a standstill and put Republican incumbents on the defensive heading into the election. It has also placed significant pressure on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who has been candid with Trump about the limits of what he can accomplish in the Senate.

Trump has leaned hard on Thune to eliminate the filibuster and force through the proof-of-citizenship bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Thune, R-S.D., has told the president both publicly and behind closed doors that the votes simply aren’t there for either move. Trump has continued pushing anyway.

In a social media post Thursday, Trump warned he would be “the last Republican president” if the voting bill fails to pass.

“Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and the Republican Senate, must not let this ‘carnage’ happen,” Trump wrote. “They will go down on the wrong side of History, as will all Republicans who just stood by and watched.”

Despite the pressure, Trump has stopped short of attacking Thune personally — a contrast to his treatment of Thune’s predecessor, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., whom Trump once called a “dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack.”

The two men speak regularly, even when Thune is delivering news the president doesn’t want to hear. As Trump continued pushing for the voting bill, Thune carved out weeks of Senate floor time to consider it — a gesture meant to signal the chamber’s support even in the absence of the necessary votes.

Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt, one of Trump’s closest allies in the Senate, said he has never heard the president say anything critical about Thune.

“It’s a difficult position,” Schmitt said of Thune’s role. “I think they have a good working relationship.”

One of Thune’s closest allies, Republican Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, described the majority leader as the “right person at the right time.”

“In the Capitol today, he is the stable force,” Rounds said. “In Washington, D.C., today, he is the stable force.”

Despite the friction, there were no clear signs of an outright rebellion within the Republican conference.

Thune “has managed it better than anyone else could manage it,” said Cassidy, who has grown into a more frequent Trump critic after losing a primary to a Trump-endorsed challenger.

Criticism of the president has occasionally come even from some of his closest Senate supporters — particularly over his proposed $1.776 billion settlement fund for political allies and his selection of Bill Pulte, who has no known background in intelligence, as acting intelligence director.

But the tensions with Trump have also stirred new friction within the Republican caucus itself. Several senators used a private conference lunch this week to call out Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, for running an online campaign to abolish the filibuster and pass the SAVE America Act, arguing he was sowing division within the party during an election year.

Some Senate Republicans, however, have made clear they have no intention of distancing themselves from the president. As colleagues criticized Trump’s Iran agreement this week, first-term Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, took to social media in vigorous defense of it.

“Let’s get the Nobel Peace Prize ready!” Moreno posted on X.

Still, Trump has far fewer loyal Senate allies now than he did when the tax and spending package narrowly cleared Congress a year ago — partly because he helped eliminate some of his most dependable supporters himself.

Both Cassidy and Texas Sen. John Cornyn lost their primaries last month after Trump threw his support behind their opponents. Tillis had already announced he wouldn’t seek reelection after Trump repeatedly targeted him on social media. All three have since become regular critics of the president.

Shortly after his primary defeat, Cornyn shared a fable on social media about a frog and a scorpion. In the story, the scorpion convinces the frog to carry it across a river, then stings the frog mid-crossing, sealing both their fates.

“The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence,” Cornyn’s post read. “To which the scorpion replies: ‘I am sorry, but I couldn’t help myself. It’s my character.’”

The November midterm elections haven’t happened yet, but politicians in several states are already plotting their next move — redrawing congressional maps to gain an advantage heading into the 2028 elections.

This new wave of redistricting efforts represents the second phase of a mid-decade boundary battle that already touches 10 states, which together are home to two out of every five people living in the United States.

The first phase got underway last summer, when President Donald Trump called on Republican-controlled states to redraw U.S. House district lines in an effort to limit losses in the midterms. Democratic-led states responded by pursuing their own partisan remapping. Then, in late April, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling weakened the federal Voting Rights Act, giving Southern Republicans new legal footing to restructure districts with large minority populations that have historically elected Democrats.

The midterm results will serve as a report card on those changes. Republicans believe they could pick up as many as 10 additional House seats under the redrawn maps. Democrats, however, point to historical trends — the president’s party typically loses seats in midterm elections — and argue that Trump’s low approval ratings could work in their favor.

If November produces another razor-thin majority for either party, the incentive to redraw maps before 2028 could intensify significantly.

Here’s a breakdown of where things stand in key states:

New York has already taken an early step toward 2028 redistricting. The state legislature recently passed a proposed constitutional amendment that would permit mid-decade redistricting, remove existing bans on partisan gerrymandering, and make it easier for lawmakers to sidestep an independent redistricting commission down the road. The measure must clear another legislative vote next year before it can be placed before voters statewide.

In Maryland, the state House speaker has asked members to block off time in July for a possible special session focused on redistricting. One proposal would put a constitutional amendment before voters that would change the requirement for compact districts — a standard that was cited in a 2022 court ruling that threw out a previous map as “a product of extreme partisan gerrymandering.”

In Colorado, supporters of an initiative petition are working to get a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would set aside congressional maps drawn by an independent commission and allow new ones to be created.

New Jersey lawmakers face a higher bar — any constitutional amendment to bypass a bipartisan redistricting commission would require either a three-fifths vote in each chamber or simple majority approval in two consecutive years before it could go to voters.

Virginia could make another attempt at a redistricting amendment that bypasses its bipartisan commission. Under state rules, amendments must pass the legislature in two separate sessions with an election in between. The state Supreme Court ruled in May that lawmakers had missed their opportunity to act before the 2025 elections, but they could restart the process with an eye toward the state’s 2027 elections.

Georgia’s legislative leaders on Wednesday chose not to pursue redistricting for 2028 during a special session called by Gov. Brian Kemp. While they expressed reluctance to act hastily, they left the door open for revisiting the issue at a later date.

Kansas Republicans fell short last year of the two-thirds support needed to call themselves into a special session on redistricting and override a potential veto from the Democratic governor. However, if Republicans capture the governor’s office in November, the path to redistricting next year could become much smoother.

The Indiana Senate rejected a Trump-backed congressional redistricting plan last year. But in this year’s Republican primaries, several senators who had opposed redistricting were defeated by Trump-endorsed challengers, potentially clearing the way for another attempt next year.

South Carolina’s Senate also turned down congressional redistricting ahead of the midterms in May, though the issue could come back before the next election cycle.

Minnesota has the most evenly split legislature in the country, with a tied House and a one-seat Democratic Senate majority. If Democrats win control of both chambers in November and hold the governorship currently held by Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, they would have the power to redraw congressional lines. Republicans, if they win the governorship and legislative races, would have the same opportunity.

Pennsylvania is in a comparable position. Democrats hold a slim House majority while Republicans have a narrow Senate edge. If Democrats win both chambers and Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro wins reelection, they could redraw the state’s congressional map. Republicans also have a path to full control. For either party, a 2018 state Supreme Court decision that struck down a Republican-drawn map as unconstitutionally gerrymandered serves as a warning against overreach.

Wisconsin faces a competitive race to fill the seat of outgoing Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. Legislative candidates will run this November under new district lines that give Democrats better odds. If Democrats gain full control, they could reconfigure the state’s Republican-leaning congressional districts — though Republicans are also in contention for the governor’s office and could hold at least one legislative chamber. Two active lawsuits challenging the current congressional map could also force redistricting regardless of election outcomes.

Republican Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves has said he anticipates state lawmakers will redraw congressional districts before the state’s 2027 elections, though no specific plan has been introduced yet.

In Illinois, Democratic state lawmakers dismissed a national party suggestion last year to redistrict congressional seats before the midterms, citing concerns that doing so could reduce representation for Black voters. Still, Democrats left open the possibility of revisiting redistricting at a later point.

The man tapped to lead the United States intelligence community is wasting no time making his mark — and his plans could mean pink slips for hundreds of workers, CNN reported Friday.

Acting Director of National Intelligence Bill Pulte is pushing to eliminate a large number of positions at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, according to two sources familiar with the situation who spoke to CNN. Pulte reportedly arrived at his new workplace a day earlier than expected on Thursday, after requesting a complete employee roster so he could evaluate who might be let go.

President Donald Trump appointed Pulte — a federal housing regulator — to the acting director role earlier this month. The appointment placed a political loyalist with no prior national security experience at the helm of the country’s intelligence apparatus during a period marked by ongoing conflicts and rising global tensions.

In his new role, Pulte would oversee major agencies including the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, the latter of which monitors foreign communications and works to defend the country against cyberattacks.

During his Thursday visit, Pulte met with attorneys and staff members, CNN noted. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to a request for comment from Reuters.

Pulte steps into the role left by Tulsi Gabbard, who announced her resignation last month. Her final day leading the agency is June 19.

Pulte’s early arrival caught many staffers off guard. Even Gabbard herself was only given a brief warning ahead of the visit, according to CNN’s reporting.

Reuters had previously reported earlier this month that agency managers had warned employees to brace for significant workforce reductions in the months ahead, following public statements from Trump expressing his desire for the new interim leader to downsize the agency.

Gabbard had already overseen a roughly 40% reduction in the agency’s workforce since she took over the position last year.

WASHINGTON — A government report identifying serious security weaknesses in American voting machines has been sitting unreleased for months, held back by White House officials as the November midterm elections draw closer, according to three sources with knowledge of the matter.

The report was produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and concludes that voting machines could be better protected through measures such as software updates. While the document does not claim that any votes were actually changed, it does identify security gaps in how the machines are used during elections, the sources said.

Inside the White House, the report has sparked debate. Some officials have argued that releasing it could damage voter confidence, particularly among Republican voters. Others have taken issue with the report for a different reason — they feel it does not adequately support President Donald Trump’s repeatedly debunked claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Several court cases brought by Trump’s legal team failed to establish any evidence of voter fraud in that race.

Some Democrats privately expressed concern that the investigation into voting machines could be used by the administration to pressure states into switching to paper ballots.

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who launched the investigation into voting machines and sought evidence to back Trump’s false election fraud claims, is stepping down on Friday. Federal housing regulator Bill Pulte will take over as interim director. Trump has publicly stated he wants Pulte to look into what he calls “rigged elections” during his time leading the agency.

What Pulte intends to do with the unreleased report remains unknown. Two of the sources said he has been briefed on the agency’s work examining voting machine flaws, including the existence of the unpublished report.

Democrats and some analysts have raised alarms about potential interference by the Trump administration in the upcoming midterm elections, which analysts widely expect will result in Republican losses.

Officials within ODNI and outside experts who advised the agency pushed in meetings with White House staff late last year to begin addressing the identified flaws. They warned that the remediation process — which requires significant coordination with individual states — needed to start promptly to be completed before the midterms.

When asked about the delay, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle issued a statement saying the administration “continues to offer assistance to state and local election officials, including through the FBI and CISA, to ensure the security and integrity of all machines used in American elections.” CISA refers to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

ODNI spokesperson Olivia Coleman said Gabbard has taken “actions within her authorities” to “support the President’s directive to secure our elections — which includes identifying vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure.”

Pulte did not respond to a request for comment.

Some of the vulnerabilities described in the ODNI report are not new — one former senior Biden administration official and two other sources said previous administrations were aware of similar issues. Those weaknesses include voting machines running outdated software and machines that can connect to the internet, creating potential entry points for hackers.

All of the sources said they were not aware of any evidence that votes had been manipulated in U.S. elections.

The report is connected to the administration’s wider push to investigate potential election fraud, which gained momentum after Trump signed an executive order in February 2025 aimed at expanding federal oversight of U.S. elections. Under the Constitution, states hold the primary authority over how their elections are run.

Senior officials at the FBI and Justice Department have spoken publicly about their own investigations into possible voter fraud. The ODNI report, which draws on both open-source and classified intelligence, would mark the first time the administration has publicly detailed its work specifically focused on voting machines.

It is one of two reports ODNI commissioned on the subject. The second report, also unpublished, was written by a government contractor called Mojave Research, which examined voting machines that had been seized from Puerto Rico. That report found no evidence the machines had been hacked, according to two sources.

Both reports have come up in White House discussions where officials debated whether sufficient evidence existed to support Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was taken from him.

Over the past six months, ODNI has briefed the White House on its findings, but has never received the go-ahead to publish the report, two sources said. The report concludes that many states are relying on outdated election systems.

The intelligence agency drew on previous reports from CISA that referenced hacking conferences where researchers found some voting machines could be compromised through insecure hardware. CISA itself has said it found no evidence of foreign interference in the 2020 election and, along with other federal, state, and local officials, declared that vote “the most secure in American history.”

The Mojave Research contract was terminated in October. The software and coding vulnerabilities that contractor identified led to a recommendation that the administration launch an emergency remediation plan requiring states to immediately update their systems. Two sources confirmed that plan has not been put into action.

Former President Barack Obama is looking to cement his historical legacy through his newly established presidential center, a project designed to reflect how he hopes to be remembered by history.

The Obama Presidential Center represents an opportunity for the former commander-in-chief to frame his years in the White House on his own terms, preserving the ideals and vision that guided his time in office.

WASHINGTON — A new national poll shows that most Americans are not satisfied with how President Donald Trump has handled the conflict with Iran, even as a tentative agreement to end the fighting came together. His overall approval rating, meanwhile, has remained flat, according to the AP-NORC survey conducted as Trump announced a deal had been reached.

The poll underscores just how unpopular the three-month war with Iran has been across the country, even as Trump shifted sharply from threatening further escalation to pursuing negotiations. About 65% of U.S. adults — roughly two-thirds — said they disapprove of Trump’s approach to Iran. The disapproval is heavily split along party lines: the vast majority of Democrats and independents view his actions negatively, but only 28% of Republicans share that view.

Trump’s Iran numbers closely mirror his broader job approval, which sits at 37% — identical to where it stood in an AP-NORC poll taken in May.

The survey was carried out June 11-17, shortly after Trump pulled back from threats to intensify the war. It wrapped up just before the final deal was signed on Wednesday, during which Trump announced an agreement with Iran and authorized lifting the U.S. naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

Even among Republicans, some expressed dissatisfaction with the terms of the agreement. The deal allows Iran to resume selling its oil on the open market immediately, reopens the Strait of Hormuz without tolls for two months, restarts diplomatic talks over Iran’s nuclear program, and requires Tehran to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

David Farrington, a 79-year-old Republican-leaning independent from Fort Worth, Texas, said he has no sympathy for Iran — but he’s disappointed the deal centered on the strait rather than delivering meaningful progress on the country’s nuclear weapons program.

PORTLAND, Maine — Maine’s ranked choice voting process has wrapped up, setting the stage for a competitive fall election season. Democrat Hannah Pingree and Republican Bobby Charles emerged as their parties’ nominees for governor, following a June 9 primary that required a ranked choice runoff to determine winners.

In the state’s 2nd Congressional District, Democrat Matt Dunlap claimed his party’s nomination. He will now face former Republican Gov. Paul LePage — a close ally of President Donald Trump — in what is expected to be one of the most hotly contested House races this November. Democrats are fighting to hold the seat as part of the broader battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Maine’s primary season also saw Democratic voters select oyster farmer Graham Platner to challenge longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins. Platner’s win was decisive enough that it did not require a ranked choice runoff.

The governor’s race is an open contest because Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, who has been in office since 2018, is term-limited and cannot seek re-election. That opened the door for five Democrats and seven Republicans to actively campaign in the June 9 primary. With such large fields in both parties, no candidate crossed the 50% threshold needed to avoid ranked choice tabulation. The Democratic contest was especially tight, with the top four candidates separated by only a few percentage points.

Democratic primary voters considered several candidates for governor: Pingree, the former speaker of the Maine House of Representatives; Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows; former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson; energy executive Angus King III; and former director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention Nirav Shah.

The Republican field was even larger. GOP voters chose among Charles, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state; healthcare executive Jonathan Bush; former Maine Senate Majority Leader Garrett Mason; former Paris, Maine, selectman Robert Wessels; and businessmen Owen McCarthy, David Jones, and Ben Midgley.

Gov. Mills had entered the U.S. Senate primary but suspended that campaign in April. On election night, she reflected on her time on the campaign trail, saying: “Throughout my two campaigns for governor and this one for Senate, what I have always loved the most is traveling across our beautiful state and getting to talk to Maine people.”

In the 2nd Congressional District Democratic primary, voters chose from former Maine Secretary of State Dunlap, state Sen. Joe Baldacci, former U.S. Senate candidate Jordan Wood, and social worker Paige Loud. LePage, meanwhile, ran unopposed on the Republican side. He served as governor from 2010 to 2018, during which time he built a reputation as a vocal critic of liberalism and a strong supporter of Trump.

The 2nd District seat is open because Democratic Rep. Jared Golden, who has held it since 2018, announced he is stepping down. Golden, known as a moderate who occasionally broke with his party, explained last year that he has “grown tired of the increasing incivility and plain nastiness that are now common from some elements of our American community.”

Though Golden won the district multiple times, it has also shown strong backing for Trump, who captured an electoral vote there in three straight presidential elections. The district covers a large geographic area, encompassing much of Maine’s rural land, logging country, and key fishing ports.

Maine has used ranked choice voting for a decade, after voters approved the system. Under the process, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no one tops 50% of the vote, the last-place candidate is eliminated and those voters’ second choices are redistributed. The process continues until one candidate achieves a majority.

As Janeese Lewis George charts her course toward the mayor’s office in Washington, D.C., she’s been telling voters they don’t have to settle for less. Her boldly left-wing platform includes subsidized or free childcare, expanded down payment help for first-time homebuyers, community-based crime prevention resources, and a firm commitment to push back against President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape the nation’s capital.

“People are tired of hearing what government can’t do. They want to hear what government can do,” Lewis George said in an interview ahead of the city’s primary election, where she defeated her Democratic rivals and put herself in a strong position to win the November general election in a city where Democrats hold a commanding majority.

Her primary win marks a clear departure from roughly 25 years of centrist leadership in Washington, D.C., and places her among a growing group of democratic socialists making gains in urban politics. Zohran Mamdani defeated Andrew Cuomo — son of a well-known political family — on his way to the New York City mayor’s race. Katie Wilson pulled off an upset win to lead Seattle last fall. And earlier this month, Nithya Raman secured a spot in the November runoff against Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

All four candidates are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, known as the DSA. Over the past decade, the organization’s membership has exploded from a few thousand people to more than 100,000 nationally, driven largely by younger Americans who were energized by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaigns. Sanders has also described himself as a democratic socialist.

There’s no clear evidence of coordination among these candidates at the national level, and it remains uncertain whether voters are drawn more to their promises of better public services, their willingness to challenge the Trump administration, or their broader critiques of capitalism.

Still, across the country, aggressively progressive candidates are advancing in races for city hall. Mayors tend to be held closely accountable by residents, and democratic socialists will face real pressure to follow through on their pledges for a new style of governance. Whether any of this reshapes national Democratic politics is the next test for the movement.

“They are all channeling a displeasure with a status quo and a serious desire for economic populism that the establishment Democratic Party hasn’t been preaching,” said Eric Stern, a Democratic strategist with Fight Agency, a political consulting firm that helped shape Mamdani’s mayoral campaign.

Stern also noted that Democratic voters seem more open to backing the most progressive option in mayoral contests than in races for U.S. House seats. Candidates like Mamdani and Raman, he said, are “daring voters to dream and fall in love not just with the individual candidates but also the political process as a whole.”

However, the reach of this progressive surge may have limits when it comes to broader Democratic politics. Mayors in cities such as Atlanta, Houston, Miami, and San Francisco have each won in recent years on comparatively moderate platforms.

Progressives have also run into significant headwinds in some places. Chicago’s mayor was endorsed by the city’s DSA chapter during his 2023 campaign but has since drawn criticism from both moderate and liberal local officials over immigration, the city budget, and public safety concerns. Elsewhere, progressive district attorneys in several jurisdictions were removed from office — through recalls or public pressure — over the past five years, as criminal justice reform efforts clashed with growing unease over public disorder in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump’s aggressive stances on immigration and law enforcement have also created complications for liberal-leaning cities. The situation is especially acute for Washington, D.C., given its unique status as a federal territory. When asked this month about the possibility of a democratic socialist becoming D.C.’s mayor, Trump told reporters: “Maybe we take back Washington and run it on a federal basis. We won’t put up with it.”

But progressive advocates are counting on widespread anti-Trump sentiment in heavily Democratic cities to lift hard-left candidates in the months ahead.

“It’s not folks looking for the leftmost option so much as looking for a candidate who’s gonna be on their side,” said Ravi Mangla, speaking on behalf of the left-leaning Working Families Party. The party frequently backs the same candidates as the DSA and is preparing to pursue more mayoral offices in the country’s largest cities this fall and in 2028. “It’s less about whether you are on the right or on the left so much as whether you are willing to punch up at the powerful,” Mangla added.

Both Mamdani and Lewis George describe themselves as “sewer socialists” — a term that emphasizes responsive, practical government services over ideological attacks on market economics. The phrase is a callback to socialist mayors of the Gilded Age era who were mocked by critics for being more focused on public works than political theory.

Reviving the term is partly a deliberate strategy to connect left-wing ideas with everyday concerns about affordability and the economy — issues that ranked as top priorities for voters in the midterm elections — and to reframe democratic socialists as pragmatic public servants rather than radical ideologues.

“This is absolutely a change election and I’m excited to bring the change that people want, which is really putting people first in the city and having the moral clarity and courage to stand up to Trump,” Lewis George said.

While conservatives have long used the word “socialist” to paint Democrats as extreme or out of touch, some D.C. voters expressed mixed feelings ahead of Tuesday’s primary. Several longtime residents said they viewed Lewis George as a “fighter” but weren’t convinced she could make a significant difference in the local economy, given the city’s federal district status.

“I go back and forth on my own labels and whether I am supportive of that movement or not, but I am supportive of making D.C. more affordable,” said Owen Fitzgerald, a University of Maryland graduate student, explaining why he backed democratic socialism in general terms.

Fitzgerald voted for Lewis George because of her willingness to stand up to Trump, and said he first heard about her campaign through friends in his neighborhood. He admitted he didn’t know she was a democratic socialist until he read news reports that described her that way.

“It sends a cultural message to this administration that the people who are surrounding them in the capital are opposed to their platform, opposed to their political agenda, and I think that it will send a message, both nationally and internationally,” Fitzgerald said.

The U.S. Department of Defense is seeking $80 billion from Congress to pay for costs stemming from the Iran war along with other unrelated expenses, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday, citing sources with knowledge of the discussions.

Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg made the request known to lawmakers during phone calls earlier this week, according to the newspaper’s sources.

A broader supplemental funding request — one that would include not just Pentagon needs but also priorities like farm assistance and disaster relief — could be submitted to Congress within the next few days, the Journal added.

Reuters, which first reported on the story, was unable to independently confirm the details. Neither the White House nor the Pentagon responded to requests for comment outside of normal business hours.

Back in April, a Pentagon official gave Reuters the first official estimate of what the Iran war has cost so far — approximately $25 billion. That conflict, which began on February 28 when Trump launched military action alongside Israel, has left Congress wrestling with questions about its total price tag.

An earlier White House request for $200 billion in additional war funding ran into significant pushback from lawmakers. At an April hearing before the House of Representatives Budget Committee, White House budget director Russell Vought said he had no cost estimate for the war while defending Trump’s proposed $1.5 trillion annual military budget.

The budget proposal reflects Republican priorities as the party looks to hold onto its congressional majority in the upcoming November midterm elections. Republicans are navigating growing public concern over rising living costs, high energy prices, and the financial strain of the ongoing Iran conflict.

Two Democratic candidates have locked in their spots for a special general election in California, competing to complete the remaining term of former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, who stepped down from Congress after facing sexual assault and misconduct allegations.

State Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a director with Bay Area Rapid Transit, earned the most votes Thursday from a large pool of Democratic and Republican candidates, earning their places in the August 18 special general election.

While Wahab held the lead in vote totals, Hernandez outlined her strategy going forward, saying her path to August involves “digging into the numbers, and going out to those areas where we know that we can secure votes.”

“I connect to voters, and that’s one thing that is definitely different than my opponent,” Hernandez added, emphasizing her focus on reducing costs for lower- and middle-class families. “We’re going to fight the good fight.”

The winner of the August special election will hold Swalwell’s seat through January, at which point the victor of the November regular general election will take over for a full two-year term. Notably, both Wahab and Hernandez also claimed the top two positions in the regular June 2 primary, meaning they are simultaneously competing in two separate races for California’s 14th Congressional District — a region that covers East Bay communities including Fremont, Hayward, and Livermore.

Republican candidates faced a steep climb in the heavily Democratic district. The third-highest vote-getter in the special election was also a Democrat — businesswoman and attorney Rakhi Israni Singh — who finished just behind Hernandez.

Whichever candidate prevails in August will likely gain a visibility advantage and several months of congressional experience to draw on during the November campaign.

Wahab, who serves as the Senate’s assistant majority leader and is a well-known figure in California politics, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday. Her campaign platform leans progressive, highlighting her record in office — including expanding social safety net programs, strengthening renter protections, championing social justice causes, and working to reduce red tape for small businesses.

Hernandez, a former mayor of the East Bay city of Dublin, has promoted many of the same goals but with a stronger emphasis on business-friendly policies. She has said she would “prioritize growing small businesses” to help lower costs, push for housing incentives, and work to reduce health insurance premiums by restoring insurance subsidies.

One of the two women will ultimately succeed Swalwell, who served seven terms in Congress before resigning in April and withdrawing from the California governor’s race. His departure followed a San Francisco Chronicle report alleging he sexually assaulted a woman on two separate occasions, including while she was employed by him. CNN subsequently reported that additional women accused him of sending inappropriate messages and explicit photos.

Swalwell, a Democrat, has consistently denied all of the allegations but stated that remaining in Congress would be unfair to the people he represented.

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers in the U.S. Senate are taking aim at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel budget, looking to cut off a portion of those funds unless the Pentagon delivers several investigations it has been sitting on — most notably one involving a deadly strike on an Iranian elementary school at the start of the U.S.-Israeli war.

The new restrictions were written into this year’s annual defense authorization bill, filed earlier this week. Under the legislation, no more than 25% of the defense secretary’s office travel funds can be used until Hegseth turns over what the bill calls “unredacted civilian harm investigations,” including a probe into the February 28, 2026, strike on the Minab school. Officials have said preliminarily that the United States was responsible for that strike, which has been attributed to outdated intelligence.

Congress, which is responsible for overseeing Pentagon operations, has not yet received the completed investigation. It is believed the report was finished last month.

Sen. Jack Reed, the leading Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, released a statement saying this year’s defense package “forces the Secretary to be more accountable to Congress and will prevent many errors of the past from being repeated in the future.”

The strike on the elementary school occurred on the opening day of the U.S. military campaign against Iran and resulted in the deaths of more than 165 people, a large number of them children. The school was located next to a Revolutionary Guard base, and the incident quickly became one of the most controversial moments of the conflict.

People familiar with the early findings, released in March, said outdated intelligence most likely caused the United States to carry out the missile attack. If confirmed, the strike would rank among the most deadly civilian casualty events tied to American military action in the past two decades.

Senators on both sides of the aisle inserted the travel fund restrictions into the National Defense Authorization Act as a way to compel the release of the findings. The bill text specifies that the cap applies until the secretary submits the investigations along with “all relevant supporting documents” covering multiple civilian harm incidents.

The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment.

Beyond the Iran school strike, senators are also calling for the Pentagon to release unedited video footage of U.S. military strikes on boats near Venezuela that were allegedly involved in drug trafficking.

The Pentagon has carried out a campaign lasting several months, striking vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. At least 211 people have been killed in those operations so far. The military has publicized some of the strikes by posting selected video clips on social media. In at least one case, people who survived an initial strike were later killed in follow-up attacks — something military law experts say conflicts with established rules of engagement. Lawmakers had pushed for similar video disclosures in last year’s defense bill as well.

Senators are additionally requesting three separate investigations into a set of strikes carried out in Yemen in April 2025, during the U.S. military’s campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels who had been targeting commercial shipping in the Red Sea.

Among the incidents under scrutiny is a strike on a port that left at least 70 people dead and more than 170 wounded, as well as a strike on a residential area in Sanaa — the rebel-controlled capital of Yemen — that hit a house and killed at least four people while wounding 16 others. Those casualty numbers were reported by the Houthis.

At the time of those strikes, U.S. Central Command declined to answer questions about them directly. After the port strike, the command said the operation “was not intended to harm the people of Yemen” and argued it was meant to “eliminate this source of fuel for the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists and deprive them of illegal revenue that has funded Houthi efforts to terrorize the entire region for over 10 years.”

All of the requested reports are to be delivered to the Armed Services committees in both the House and Senate.

The provisions are part of the National Defense Authorization Act, a wide-ranging 1,500-page policy document that sets the direction for the military in the coming year. The bill is put together with input from both Republicans, who hold the Senate majority, and Democrats in the minority — making it one of the rare pieces of legislation that routinely passes with bipartisan support.

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the measure last week, and the full Senate is expected to take it up for a vote.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A deepening political crisis is gripping the administration of Puerto Rico Gov. Jenniffer González, as fresh allegations of public corruption, government interference, and conflicts of interest continue to surface.

The latest figure caught up in the controversy is the governor’s chief of staff, Francisco Domenech, who is now the subject of a high-profile investigation. His situation follows the resignation last month of the island’s economic development chief, Sebastián Negrón, who publicly accused the administration of meddling in his agency’s operations. More than ten other officials from that agency — including its general counsel and finance chief — also stepped down, leaving the agency struggling in its mission to attract new investors to an island already burdened by chronic power outages and other persistent challenges.

Domenech holds a prominent role in the administration and also serves as executive director of Puerto Rico’s Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority.

On Wednesday, Domenech filed sworn statements with Puerto Rico’s Department of Justice and its Office of Government Ethics, accusing Negrón of corruption and conflicts of interest. The following day, he defended those actions in an interview with WIPR, a government-run television station.

Domenech explained that he waited until this week to act because he needed time to gather what he describes as evidence against Negrón — the same official the governor had previously praised as “a star” when she expressed regret over his departure in late May.

The allegations targeting Domenech are being examined by an independent state agency, and the matter has now reached the halls of the U.S. Congress. Federal lawmakers questioned the governor directly about the situation during a committee hearing Wednesday.

“How can Congress be assured that federal funds sent to Puerto Rico aren’t being misused or misplaced?” asked Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah during the hearing.

Gov. González responded by saying there is rigorous oversight in place for federal funds and insisted the allegations against Domenech are untrue. When Sen. Lee pressed her on why Negrón would make such accusations, she replied, “I don’t know what political motivations he may have.”

The controversy has also stirred tensions within the governor’s own party. Puerto Rico Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz, who belongs to the same pro-statehood party as González, called for Domenech’s resignation on Wednesday. Then on Thursday, Rivera Schatz offered legislative immunity to Domenech and anyone else “if they confess their crimes and produce results that eradicate corruption.”

Domenech’s interview with WIPR marked the first time he had spoken publicly since Negrón accused him of irregularities tied to contract processing and improper government interference. Negrón had also referred to the Justice Department and the Office of Government Ethics the findings of an internal investigation involving two government officials accused of meddling in the bidding process for a contract that included federal funds.

Domenech filed his sworn statements after alleged private text messages between him and Negrón became public earlier this week, sending shockwaves through the U.S. territory. Some of those alleged messages appear to show pressure being applied to find positions within the economic development agency for loyal supporters of González who had worked on her campaign. Domenech also claimed that Negrón was already aware he was under investigation.

In a statement released Thursday, Negrón flatly denied Domenech’s accusations against him.

“The most troubling aspect of what happened today is not the attack against me personally, but the message it sends to every public servant who witnesses irregularities and decides to report them,” Negrón said.

He also warned that businesses that have invested in Puerto Rico are being pulled into the scandal as collateral damage.

“Puerto Rico needs to strengthen the confidence of those who invest, produce, and generate opportunities, not turn them into collateral damage in personal or political disputes or vendettas,” Negrón said.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A number of Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, including key figures on national security, are speaking out against the Trump administration’s deal to stop the conflict with Iran — with some offering outright condemnation of its terms.

President Donald Trump signed a memorandum of understanding that kicks off a 60-day countdown to negotiate a permanent agreement on Iran’s nuclear future. While some Trump allies point out the deal isn’t finalized, the removal of economic sanctions on Iranian oil sales and a proposed $300 billion fund to rebuild Iran’s economy have sparked backlash from Republican lawmakers and conservative voices — including some who have previously been among Trump’s staunchest supporters.

Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee and has previously urged Trump to maintain pressure on Iran, expressed his unease. “President Trump has pursued peace through strength. I hope the intermediaries working on this deal are not undermining that objective,” he said.

Wicker also took aim at the reconstruction fund, saying, “The $300 billion fund for the reconstruction and economic development of Iran — though not funded by U.S. taxpayers — would make Iran’s payoff under President Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison.” He was referring to the Democratic administration’s Iran agreement that Trump walked away from during his first term in office.

The pushback from within Trump’s own party — while not universal — comes as the president is working to wrap up an unpopular war with midterm elections fewer than five months away, a period when Republicans are already facing challenges in protecting their slim congressional majorities.

Several of Wicker’s Senate colleagues, many of whom backed the war when it started, echoed his concerns. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a strong supporter of the war effort, put it bluntly: “History demonstrates giving billions of dollars to the theocratic lunatics who want to kill you is an exceptionally bad idea. And so I hope we don’t do that.”

Trump fired back on Truth Social, labeling his critics “fools” and calling the notion that the United States would pay $300 billion to Iran “fake news.” The interim agreement does include a $300 billion postwar reconstruction fund, though the source of that money remains unclear. Trump echoed Wicker’s point that American taxpayers would not be footing the bill. “All there is for the U.S. is Success, Lower Oil Prices, and Victory,” Trump posted.

As the memorandum was formally transmitted to Congress on Thursday, multiple Republican senators said it raised more questions than it answered, particularly around its financial terms. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and his South Dakota colleague Sen. Mike Rounds said they were looking for answers on how financial incentives to Iran would be enforced and how conditions against funding terrorism would be upheld, because “right now, a lot of money’s going to go to Iran,” Rounds noted.

Not all Republicans were critical. Some who align more closely with Trump’s America First approach were willing to give the president room to work. Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas highlighted what he called a crucial provision in the memorandum, writing on social media that it “lays out a key commitment that strengthens regional security and ensures that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.”

Louisiana GOP Senate candidate John Fleming, who is courting Trump’s most loyal base ahead of a June 27 Republican primary runoff, argued that the deal carries an implicit warning. He said Trump has signaled the U.S. would strike Iran again if it fails to honor the agreement. “The criticism may be worthy if there isn’t follow-through,” Fleming said. “He’s using the speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick in offering them plenty of help, but at the same time he’s got that stick ready if they don’t live up to their agreements.”

Even some of Trump’s most devoted supporters in conservative media have sounded the alarm. Conservative radio host Mark Levin suggested the administration should slow things down and wait until after the midterms before finalizing anything with Iran. “We should consider slow-walking the enemy, building up our munitions, our oil reserves, get the price of gasoline down, get through the midterms, then knock them out,” he wrote on social media. He argued the current approach appeared to be “rushing to a deal, building up their oil industry” while agreeing to transfer billions of dollars to the Iranian government.

Right-wing social media influencer Laura Loomer, a long-time Trump supporter who has also promoted conspiracy theories, was even more pointed in her criticism, posting on X: “Who is giving the President tainted, pro-Islamic intel?”

Despite their varying relationships with Trump, the critics share a fundamental distrust of the Iranian regime. Former Vice President Mike Pence, whose bond with Trump was severely damaged following the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, weighed in as well. “It does smack of the kind of appeasement,” Pence said. “Bottom line. I don’t trust the Iranians.”

Sen. Tammy Duckworth fired off a letter Thursday to the head of the Federal Aviation Administration, asking the agency to hold the line against any potential pressure from President Donald Trump to greenlight his proposed triumphal arch without fully weighing aviation safety risks.

Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat who serves as the top Democrat on the Senate’s aviation subcommittee, is raising alarms about Trump’s plan for a 250-foot (76-meter) arch in the nation’s capital. The structure, which Trump wants built to mark the country’s 250th anniversary, would stand more than twice the height of the Lincoln Memorial.

In her letter, Duckworth expressed concern that the FAA’s early review of the arch appeared to have been rushed. She questioned whether Trump or members of his White House staff are “already improperly pressuring FAA to prioritize rubberstamping Trump’s vanity arch over public safety.”

A National Park Service preliminary report, which Duckworth referenced in her letter to FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford, indicated that officials are aiming to finish the massive structure within three years. That timeline could require construction crews to work up to 20 hours a day, with cranes reaching as high as 320 feet (106 meters).

The FAA said it plans to respond to Duckworth directly.

A central concern in the letter is the arch’s location near the congested airspace surrounding Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport — the same airport where a U.S. Army helicopter and a commercial airliner collided last year, claiming 67 lives.

That disaster “underscores the consequences of inadequate coordination and the need for extreme caution when evaluating any new obstruction in this environment,” Duckworth wrote. She added that the FAA must be “firm in rejecting any improper or irresponsible pressure” from Trump regarding the project.

The FAA had previously stated that an early feasibility review found “no adverse impacts to operations” at the nearby airport, though it noted the top of the arch would require red obstruction lighting, which it described as “a common safety tool.” The agency said a more thorough study, conducted in partnership with the National Park Service, would follow.

Duckworth also raised a cultural concern, arguing that the arch would cut across the historic visual corridor between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, which she said would “offensively desecrate the hallowed symbolism” of that view.