Category: Politics

Senior Republican legislators voiced opposition on Saturday to the Pentagon’s announcement that it would remove 5,000 American military personnel from Germany, a key NATO partner.

Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama released a joint statement expressing their displeasure with the military drawdown decision. Both lawmakers serve as chairmen of their respective Armed Services Committees in the Senate and House.

“We are very concerned by the decision to withdraw a U.S. brigade from Germany,” the Republican leaders stated in their joint announcement.

The lawmakers issued their response one day following the Pentagon’s official announcement of the troop reduction, which military officials said would take between six months to one year to fully implement.

The decision follows recent diplomatic friction between President Donald Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Earlier this week, Merz criticized American strategy regarding Iran negotiations, stating that Iranians were “humiliating the U.S. in talks to end the two-month-old war” and questioning Washington’s exit strategy approach.

According to Wicker and Rogers, any major adjustments to American military positioning in Europe requires proper consultation with both Congressional oversight committees and allied nations.

“We expect the Department to engage with its oversight committees in the days and weeks ahead on this decision and its implications for U.S. deterrence and transatlantic security,” the legislators declared in their statement.

The lawmakers warned that reducing American forces in Europe too quickly could send problematic messages to Russian President Vladimir Putin and weaken regional security. They noted that even if NATO member countries increase their defense budgets to 5% of their GDP, developing adequate military capabilities to handle conventional deterrence independently will require significant time.

The statement emphasized that premature cuts to U.S. forces in Europe “risks undermining deterrence and sending the wrong signal to Vladimir Putin.”

JACKSON, Miss. — Edward Blackmon Jr. was just 16 when police arrested him during a voting rights demonstration in his Mississippi community. Officers packed him and his fellow students into a former chicken transport truck, leaving them in sweltering heat before confining them to an overcrowded jail cell without beds for three days.

That experience shaped Blackmon’s future as a civil rights attorney and among the first Black legislators elected in Mississippi following Reconstruction.

Blackmon belonged to a generation of Black Americans throughout the South who battled in courts and on streets to tear down voting obstacles and secure political representation in an area marked by slavery’s legacy.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly weakened one of their greatest achievements — the Voting Rights Act. The court’s conservative justices ruled that states cannot use racial demographics as a primary factor in creating congressional districts, potentially reshaping how political influence is allocated and creating additional hurdles for minority candidates.

The majority decision characterized racism as historical. Critics viewed the ruling as evidence of its return — “a defibrillator to the heart of Jim Crow,” according to one Louisiana official.

Bradford Blackmon, Edward’s son and a 37-year-old Mississippi state senator, explained that district boundaries “shapes who has a real chance before anyone ever votes.”

“It’s just sad that we made progress and then they are always trying to roll it back when it shows that minorities are making more progress than I would guess that those in charge think that they’re allowed to make,” he stated.

The elder Blackmon, now 78, expressed acceptance that his generation’s battle continues.

“It’s just another cycle — an ongoing struggle without a foreseeable ending,” he commented.

The Supreme Court case examined Louisiana’s congressional map and established new limits on using the Voting Rights Act to challenge district boundaries that could diminish Black voters’ influence.

Many Black Americans viewed the ruling as devastating to a cornerstone of the Civil Rights Movement. Prior to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Black voters in the Deep South lacked guaranteed equal ballot access. Within one year of enactment, over 250,000 Black Americans gained voting rights. By 2024, approximately 22 million Black voters were registered across the nation, according to Census Bureau data.

The country now faces the dismantling of nearly 100 years of organizing, peaceful resistance, and personal sacrifice by citizens who elevated Black political influence to levels not seen since Reconstruction. Movement veterans — individuals who suffered alongside John Lewis during the 1965 Selma march known as Bloody Sunday or demonstrated with Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. — are witnessing their hard-earned victories being stripped from future generations.

“I’m the first generation of Americans born with equal rights,” said Jonathan Jackson, a Democratic congressman from Illinois and 60-year-old son of civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson. Jackson described the possibility of his children having fewer protections as “surreal and devastating.”

Charles Mauldin, who endured police beatings as a teenager on Bloody Sunday, believes the ruling reflects an unresolved conflict.

“I’m disappointed but not surprised,” said the 78-year-old Birmingham, Alabama resident. “They’ve been chipping away at the 1965 Voting Rights Act for the last 60 years.”

In Louisiana, younger Black politicians warn the Supreme Court decision could alter not only election winners but whether candidates can compete effectively, especially in local races that typically lead to higher offices.

Davante Lewis, a 34-year-old Democrat serving on the state utility regulatory board, anticipates districts being redrawn to disadvantage candidates like himself.

“They can target my communities … to ensure that I can’t get to an elected office,” said Lewis, who was among the plaintiffs in the original Louisiana redistricting case that reached the Supreme Court.

Jamie Davis, a Black farmer from northeast Louisiana running for U.S. Senate as a Democrat, worries the decision will discourage already skeptical voters.

“I want to be optimistic, but how can you be optimistic when voter turnout in the past election cycles has been really low,” Davis commented.

Tennessee expects new redistricting efforts following the ruling. State Rep. Justin Pearson, who represents Memphis and seeks a congressional seat, said Voting Rights Act supporters are “shocked and devastated that they’re having to relitigate the same fights that they fought 60 years ago.”

However, Pearson predicted attempts to reduce Black representation might “reinvigorate a civil rights movement in the South that demands equal representation, that demands fairness, that demands justice and equality.”

Those supporting the Supreme Court decision argue it promotes race-neutral redistricting, claiming political boundaries should not be drawn primarily on racial considerations.

Mississippi state Rep. Bryant Clark contends this perspective overlooks how race and party affiliation intersect in his state. With most Black voters supporting Democrats and most white voters backing Republicans, he argues the distinctions often blur.

“It’s just a roundabout way to basically legalize racially discriminatory redistricting in the state,” Clark explained.

His father, Robert Clark Jr., became Mississippi’s first Black legislator elected since Reconstruction in 1967.

Given that Black residents comprise roughly 38% of Mississippi’s population, Edward Blackmon Jr. noted current maps enable Black voters to elect representatives in certain districts while preserving Republican control elsewhere in the state.

He argued lawmakers have little motivation to alter this arrangement since redistributing Black voters across more districts would reduce conservative reliability and require candidates to appeal to diverse constituencies.

“Where do you think the population goes? They don’t just disappear,” Blackmon questioned. “What incumbent wants that type of district right now?”

Blackmon grew up in Canton during the height of Jim Crow segregation.

Black students attended segregated schools, and during cotton harvest season, classes ended early when makeshift trucks arrived to transport students to fields for hours of labor.

At home, he witnessed these inequalities in subtler forms.

His father, a World War II veteran who left the sharecropping farm where Blackmon’s grandfather labored, struggled to find stable employment in Mississippi after military service and civil rights involvement. He eventually relocated to New York for work — joining many Black veterans who faced barriers to jobs and opportunities available to white counterparts.

Blackmon recalls sitting nearby as his father and community leaders gathered on their porch, discussing plans for establishing a local NAACP chapter late into the evening.

“It was embedded in my memory and experience that it was worth the struggle,” he reflected.

The Voting Rights Act’s passage did not immediately transform these conditions. In communities like Canton, federal officials established voter registration stations on downtown streets, allowing Black residents to register without facing harassment from local authorities.

Subsequently, Blackmon and fellow attorneys utilized the law to challenge at-large election systems that prevented Black communities from choosing their preferred candidates. Cities and counties faced court orders to create single-member districts.

When these districts continued diluting Black voting power, activists returned to court.

“Without the Voting Rights Act, Mississippi would look so much different than it looks now,” Blackmon concluded.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump expressed openness to federal government ownership of Spirit Airlines, provided the arrangement could be framed as a profitable venture for what has become a growing collection of taxpayer-funded business investments.

However, the low-cost airline shut down operations Saturday following failed negotiations with an administration that increasingly views government as an active investor shaping America’s economic direction.

Despite Trump’s frequent criticism of Democrats and political rivals as communists — contrary to the free-market principles that helped establish America as a global superpower — he has embraced government ownership of certain production assets since returning to office.

Trump identifies opportunities in preserving established American brands like Intel while potentially generating profits for the federal treasury. The Republican president considers these investments essential for economic security and representative of his negotiation expertise, abandoning traditional GOP principles that government should avoid choosing market winners and losers.

Regarding Spirit, a financially struggling discount airline facing increased fuel expenses due to the Iran conflict, Trump informed reporters Friday that government would purchase company shares “only if it’s a good deal.” His opposition to a bailout stemmed from financial concerns rather than ideological objections.

“If we can help them, we will,” Trump stated. “But we have to come first.” Trump has not yet commented on the carrier’s closure.

He drew parallels to his earlier decision to acquire Intel shares. Trump has closely monitored the semiconductor company’s stock performance. “I’m very proud of that Company in that I am responsible for making the United States of America over 30 Billion Dollars in the last 90 days on that stock alone,” Trump wrote on social media recently.

Communist ideology maintains significant influence in nations like China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba, where governments play central roles in delivering goods and services. The philosophy has evolved from requiring government ownership of all property to systems where government might own or control major corporations.

In America, significant government intervention in private enterprise has been uncommon except during economic downturns. Trump advisors argue his interventions are essential to compete with China’s industrial strength, though the president has frequently connected corporate America to his administration.

He has utilized tariffs to encourage foreign investment and claimed control over spending decisions. The government maintains a “golden share” restricting Japan’s Nippon Steel’s actions after purchasing U.S. Steel. His administration negotiated an agreement taking a portion of computer chip sales to China by Nvidia and AMD.

During Trump’s tenure, the government has invested in rare earth minerals company MP Materials to challenge China’s dominance of metallic elements required for smartphones, automobiles and other technologies. Additional agreements include stakes in Lithium America, Trilogy Metals and Vulcan Elements, plus favorable financing for Westinghouse and ReElement Technologies.

The administration chose not to end government control of mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Trump claims they have increased in value because he retained ownership rather than privatizing the companies during his first presidency. “If I would have sold it, I would have felt like a schmuck,” he remarked Friday.

He maintains regular contact with CEOs through frequent phone conversations while demanding their support for his policies. He has instructed Walmart not to increase prices due to his tariffs and indicated he would favorably “remember” companies that decline seeking refunds after the Supreme Court declared his tariffs illegal.

Critics view Trump’s desire to fund and maintain ownership stakes in private businesses as reflecting an unchecked ego.

“This is entirely a reflection of a transactional-minded president who wants unilateral control of the economy,” stated Tad DeHaven, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization. “At the end of the day, it is about power, it is about leverage and it is about control.”

Others recognize logic in competing against Chinese manufacturers that can operate without profit concerns, undermining factories in other developed nations and threatening America’s position as a military and technological leader.

The Intel investment represented “a strategic move, necessitated by the growth of China as an economic peer and rival,” said Sujai Shivakumar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington research institute.

“The key point is that we should not sacrifice our national economic and industrial framework in the name of ‘free markets’ or other ideologies,” he explained. “Pragmatism, in various forms of industrial and innovation policy, have always been a feature of our economic system since the very beginning of our republic.”

Throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump characterized Democrat Joe Biden’s administration as communist and socialist.

“We will cast out the communists,” Trump declared during an April 13, 2024, Pennsylvania speech. “We will liberate our country from these tyrants and villains once and for all.”

Biden frequently emphasized his faith in free markets to benefit the middle class and believed raising corporate tax rates would achieve that goal. “I’m a capitalist,” he said during his final State of the Union address, stating he supported company profits. “That’s great — just pay your fair share in taxes,” he added.

The Biden administration provided loans and grants to semiconductor manufacturers and sought to maximize government’s role as a purchaser of American products. However, a crucial distinction was that investments were based on Congressional legislation.

Trump’s independent approach offers more flexibility, his White House contends, noting that funding for his investments comes from previously Congressional-approved sources.

Trump specifically converted loans and grants from Biden’s 2022 CHIPS and Science Act into an $11.1 billion Intel stock purchase. During his 2025 Congressional address, Trump called the CHIPS Act a “horrible, horrible thing” and suggested Republican majorities recover funding to reduce the budget deficit.

With Spirit Airlines in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, his administration had considered a $500 million agreement that would have provided government ownership in the Florida-based discount airline. Other budget carriers have expressed interest in similar arrangements.

This possibility prompted objections from Republicans including Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas. Trump told Oval Office reporters he wanted to preserve Spirit Airlines jobs and that “when the prices of oil goes down, we’ll sell it for a profit.”

Government investment can help balance competition for American companies facing subsidized foreign competitors, said Monica Gorman, a managing director at Crowell Global Advisors who led manufacturing and industrial policy in the Biden White House.

However, Gorman questioned whether the Trump administration fully understood the risks of “making some bad bets.” She emphasized the importance of establishing formal processes through legislation rather than depending on Trump’s preferences.

“Congress really needs to step in and design a legislative framework for U.S. industrial policy that governs equity stakes as well as other mechanisms such as loans and grants,” she stated. “All of these are important tools in the U.S. industrial policy toolkit, but we need more guidance on when and how to use them.”

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Dr. Amy Acton, the Democratic candidate running without primary opposition for Ohio governor, confronts significant hurdles as she heads into the general election campaign.

The physician hopes to become the first Democrat to capture the governor’s mansion in two decades in a state where Republicans have gained political dominance. Her likely Republican challenger, Vivek Ramaswamy, brings national recognition and substantial personal wealth to fund his campaign efforts.

However, Acton’s greatest challenge may stem from her role during the COVID-19 health crisis.

As Ohio’s health department director when the coronavirus reached America in early 2020, Acton witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of deaths, public fear, and widespread disruption. Her aggressive governmental response to combat the virus made her a recognizable figure across Ohio.

Now, six years after those events, the emergency measures Acton implemented under Republican Governor Mike DeWine’s direction — including school shutdowns, business closures, sports event cancellations, and the postponement of the 2020 primary election — have resurfaced as major talking points for Republican critics targeting her gubernatorial bid.

At political gatherings, Ramaswamy has criticized Acton for promoting what he calls harmful “COVID ideology.” Acton’s team believes voters will reject such attacks.

Campaign spokesperson Addie Bullock stated: “Dr. Acton is proud of the work she did alongside Governor DeWine to put public health over politics, save lives and keep Ohioans safe. It is unfortunate that Vivek Ramaswamy wants to play politics on this issue.”

Dressed in her signature white physician’s coat, Acton became a familiar presence during the daily coronavirus updates with DeWine that captivated audiences statewide. She consistently delivered measured explanations about infection patterns, rising hospital admissions and fatalities, while offering practical guidance for residents.

“Ohio, don the mask, don your cape,” Acton urged at the time, encouraging citizens to embrace heroic actions.

The psychological wounds from the pandemic period remain unhealed throughout Ohio and beyond. The crisis fundamentally altered American perspectives on vaccination, government intervention in personal affairs, and confidence in public health authorities.

This underlying distrust, persisting despite reduced virus concerns, has become an unexpected element in the gubernatorial contest.

Ramaswamy, leading the Republican field, has launched advertisements exploiting continued resentment over Acton’s election directive issued for DeWine. Republican gatherings across Ohio now respond to Acton’s name with vocal disapproval.

“Are we choosing freedom or are we choosing Fauci?” questioned Zac Haines, a Republican state Senate candidate referencing former infectious disease specialist Anthony Fauci while energizing a recent Ramaswamy fundraiser audience. “Are we choosing liberty or are we choosing lockdowns?”

Among Democratic supporters, Acton maintains her status as a beloved figure who sparked the 2020 Dr. Amy Acton Fan Club, complete with lawn signs, collectible bobbleheads, and proposals for a commemorative state holiday.

During current campaign appearances, she appears cautious when referencing her tenure as Ohio’s top health official, occasionally avoiding direct mention of COVID-19 or coronavirus terminology.

“I had the honor and the privilege, the privilege, of serving in a very tough moment,” she addressed Democratic supporters in southwestern Ohio during March. “I’m proud of Ohioans, because together we flattened that curve, we saved a lot of lives.”

Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show Ohio achieved the 22nd-lowest per capita coronavirus death rate among all states during the pandemic’s initial year.

Acton, who departed her position in mid-2020, rarely discusses the aftermath of the restrictions: DeWine’s political backlash over business shutdowns and health requirements, Republican legislative efforts to curtail gubernatorial authority, and armed demonstrators who gathered outside her residence.

Speaking at a recent Columbus States Forum symposium designed to bridge political divides within the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, Acton highlighted her experience serving or advising five different governors.

“So I’ll work with anyone who wants to solve a problem rather than make one,” she declared, “which is what Ohioans are longing for.”

Despite endorsing Ramaswamy, DeWine criticized his campaign’s advertisement attacking Acton for postponing the 2020 primary.

“I told her to issue the health order,” he clarified. “The decision was mine.”

Both Ramaswamy and other prominent Republicans in this year’s elections maintain connections to Ohio’s pandemic management.

Leading Roivant Sciences, the biotech research firm he established in 2014, Ramaswamy “worked with the lieutenant governor as an adviser on COVID-19” throughout 2020, according to his 2021 editorial. The lieutenant governor then, Republican Jon Husted, currently serves as a U.S. senator seeking reelection and regularly joined Acton and DeWine during Ohio’s daily virus briefings.

A Roivant affiliate, Genevant Sciences, played a “fundamental role” according to a March announcement detailing a $2.2 billion settlement with Moderna regarding unauthorized use of Genevant’s and Arbutus Biopharma’s vaccine patents.

Throughout the pandemic, Ramaswamy, whose spouse practices medicine, endorsed vaccinations. He received immunization himself and promoted mask usage, though he maintained he never supported government mandates for either.

Ramaswamy’s company Datavant even advocated for a national COVID database enabling the small population segment developing natural coronavirus immunity to “get back to normal life” while others remained “segregated.”

Since launching his 2024 presidential campaign, Ramaswamy has worked to separate himself from that period. In early 2023, he left the Roivant board and removed references to his “COVID-19 Response Team” service from his Wikipedia profile, calling it a factual correction since the group never convened.

His campaign directed Roivant-related questions to the company, which failed to respond to email inquiries.

In discussions, Ramaswamy explained that both his COVID registry support and conversations with Husted focused on “getting the economy going again.” While describing his virus stance as “nuanced,” he pledged to challenge Acton regarding decisions to close Ohio businesses and schools and postpone the 2020 primary, ultimately conducted through mail voting.

“As a decision maker, you have to weigh the costs and benefits of your actions,” he stated. “You can’t be unmoored from the data.”

A federal appeals court has delivered the most significant blow to abortion access since Roe v. Wade was overturned, prohibiting the distribution of mifepristone abortion pills through mail services nationwide.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans issued the unanimous decision Friday, representing a major win for anti-abortion advocates who have worked to limit access to abortion medications prescribed through online consultations, which they believe circumvent state-level abortion prohibitions.

The decision, anticipated to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal, mandates that mifepristone must be dispensed only through face-to-face visits at medical facilities, effectively overturning Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

Louisiana’s Attorney General Liz Murrill initiated legal action against the FDA last month, frustrated by insufficient federal measures against medication-based abortions. She argued that current FDA guidelines weakened Louisiana’s complete abortion prohibition.

Judge Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee, stated in the decision: “The regulation creates an effective way for an out-of-state prescriber to place the drug in the hands of Louisianans in defiance of Louisiana law.”

While FDA representatives indicated the agency is reassessing mifepristone’s safety protocols, the appeals court observed no established deadline for completing this evaluation.

The Friday decision takes immediate effect during ongoing litigation and impacts every state, including those without abortion limitations.

Federal courts rarely overturn FDA scientific determinations, making the long-term implications for medication distribution uncertain.

Republican Murrill hailed the decision as a “victory for life,” while other abortion opponents praised the reversal of Biden administration policies that eliminated previous requirements for in-person physician consultations.

Neither FDA officials nor Justice Department representatives provided immediate responses to comment requests.

Danco Laboratories, which manufactures mifepristone and faces the lawsuit, requested the appeals court delay implementation for one week to allow time for Supreme Court intervention.

Approved in 2000, mifepristone provides a safe and effective method for ending early pregnancies. Healthcare providers typically combine it with misoprostol, a second medication unaffected by this ruling but less effective when used alone.

Research indicates that medication accounts for most U.S. abortions, with approximately 25% of procedures prescribed through telehealth services. Healthcare professionals suggest telehealth availability explains why abortion numbers haven’t decreased since the 2022 Roe reversal.

Consequently, abortion medications and out-of-state prescribing physicians have become primary targets for abortion opponents.

Several Democratic-controlled states have enacted protective legislation for providers who prescribe through telehealth and ship medications to states with prohibitions. These “shield laws” face testing through Louisiana and Texas court cases.

Dr. Angel Foster, who operates a telehealth service in a state with protective laws, consulted legal experts about the ruling’s impact on The Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project.

“We will do everything in our power to continue providing care to people in all 50 states,” she stated.

This case may elevate abortion as a central midterm election issue as Democrats seek House control while Republicans defend their slim majority.

Recent voting patterns suggest abortion-access supporters maintain political advantage. Following Roe’s overturn, abortion appeared on ballots in 17 states, with voters supporting abortion rights in 14 instances.

Fatima Goss Graves, who leads the National Women’s Law Center and supports abortion rights, criticized the ruling as “deeply out of step with both the public and fact-based science.”

Anti-abortion advocates criticized Trump following the ruling, expressing disappointment that he hadn’t personally blocked pill distribution.

Under Trump’s administration, the FDA approved an additional generic mifepristone version last year, disappointing some Republican allies.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said: “It’s shameful that the Trump administration’s inaction has forced pro-life states to take their battle to the federal courts,” while also praising the decision.

After enduring 28 years of wrongful imprisonment, an exonerated Louisiana man successfully won election to serve as New Orleans court clerk, only to see state legislators vote to eliminate the very position he had been chosen to fill.

The case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by those who have been cleared of crimes they never committed, even after achieving what appeared to be a significant personal and professional victory through the democratic process.

WASHINGTON – After more than two months of military action against Iran, President Donald Trump confronts the possibility that an extended stalemate could create an even larger crisis than what existed before hostilities began.

Despite both nations expressing confidence in their positions, the gap between them remains vast, offering no clear path toward resolution. Iran recently submitted a new negotiation proposal, which Trump swiftly rejected on Friday.

The continuing deadlock presents serious political challenges for Trump and the Republican Party.

A prolonged conflict threatens to maintain global economic disruption, including elevated gasoline costs for Americans, adding pressure on Trump as his approval numbers decline and potentially damaging Republican chances in November’s congressional midterm elections.

OBJECTIVES REMAIN UNACHIEVED

The ongoing situation underscores a fundamental issue: the military campaign has not accomplished many of Trump’s declared objectives.

Although successive American and Israeli military strikes significantly damaged Iran’s armed forces, Trump’s frequently changing war aims – ranging from government overthrow to eliminating Iran’s nuclear weapons capability – have not been realized.

Concerns about an extended stalemate intensified after Trump canceled his negotiators’ planned visit to Islamabad last weekend and rejected Iran’s ceasefire offer, which has been in effect since April 8.

Iran’s proposal involved postponing nuclear program discussions until the conflict officially ends and an agreement is reached regarding the Strait of Hormuz reopening. Trump rejected this approach, insisting nuclear issues must be addressed immediately.

Hope briefly emerged Friday when Iran’s state news agency IRNA announced Tehran had submitted a revised proposal through Pakistani intermediaries, causing global oil prices to drop after sharp increases following Iran’s effective closure of the strait. Trump expressed dissatisfaction with the offer to reporters, though he acknowledged ongoing telephone communications.

Failing to regain control of the crucial oil shipping corridor would significantly damage Trump’s presidential legacy.

“He’d be remembered as the U.S. president who made the world less safe,” said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East expert at Johns Hopkins University in Washington.

White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales stated that Iran’s “desperation” is growing due to military and economic pressure, and Trump “holds all the cards and has all the time he needs to make the best deal.”

POTENTIAL FOR RENEWED FIGHTING

With unclear next steps and no apparent conclusion, Trump has privately discussed implementing an extended naval blockade against Iran, potentially lasting months, designed to further restrict oil exports and compel a nuclear disarmament agreement, according to a White House official speaking anonymously.

Simultaneously, he has kept military options available. U.S. Central Command has developed plans for a “short and powerful” strike series and for securing portions of the strait to restore shipping access, Axios reported Thursday.

European diplomats indicated their governments, whose relationships with Trump have been strained by the conflict, anticipate the current Iranian situation will continue.

“It’s hard to see how this will end soon,” said one diplomat, requesting anonymity.

Iran maintains its defiant stance.

The country has wielded significant influence against America and its allies, creating an unprecedented energy crisis by restricting shipping through the strait, which previously carried one-fifth of global oil supplies.

Experts believe Iran will gain confidence knowing this capability will remain available even after the conflict ends.

“Iran has realized that, even in a weakened state, it can shut off the Strait at will,” said Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “That knowledge leaves Iran stronger than it was before the war.”

NUCLEAR MATERIALS PERSIST

Trump – who campaigned on avoiding foreign military entanglements – has also failed to accomplish his primary stated objective when attacking Iran on February 28: eliminating its nuclear weapons potential.

Intelligence suggests highly enriched uranium stockpiles remain buried following American and Israeli airstrikes last June and could be retrieved and processed into weapons-grade material. Iran maintains it wants American recognition of its uranium enrichment rights for claimed peaceful purposes.

Wales, the White House spokeswoman, claimed Trump had “met or surpassed” all military goals, including action “to ensure that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.”

Another declared war objective – stopping Iranian support for proxy organizations including Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis and Palestinian Hamas – also remains unaccomplished.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth denied in congressional testimony that the conflict had become a “quagmire,” despite Trump’s initial prediction of a four-to-six week duration.

Future peace negotiations appear unlikely to produce rapid results given the substantial disagreements.

While Trump has insisted on accepting only comprehensive solutions to Iran’s threat, he has occasionally indicated interest in finding an exit strategy from the unpopular conflict.

At Trump aides’ request, intelligence agencies are examining how Iran might respond if he declared victory unilaterally and withdrew forces, according to U.S. officials speaking to Reuters.

Independent analysts suggest Tehran would view such action as its own strategic victory for surviving the military campaign.

Meanwhile, European and Gulf Arab diplomats worry Trump might eventually accept an inadequate agreement allowing a weakened Iran to remain threatening.

FROZEN CONFLICT POSSIBILITY

With negotiations stalled, some experts suggest the conflict could become a frozen dispute resisting permanent resolution. This scenario could prevent Trump from significantly reducing Middle Eastern military presence.

America is already experiencing new strategic consequences.

These include damaged relationships with traditional European allies, who were not consulted before Trump initiated hostilities.

He has severely criticized NATO partners for not deploying naval forces to help reopen the strait, and recently discussed potentially reducing troop levels in Germany, Spain and Italy.

Trump must also manage a more hardline Iranian leadership, controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which assumed power after American-Israeli strikes eliminated several officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The president’s early conflict appeal for Iranians to overthrow their government has been ignored.

Domestically, Trump faces pressure to end a war that has driven his approval rating to his term’s lowest point – 34%, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling – and pushed gasoline prices above $4 per gallon before midterm elections where Republicans risk losing congressional control.

A second White House spokeswoman, Taylor Rogers, said Trump remained committed to maintaining his party’s congressional majority and that elevated gasoline prices represented only “short-term disruptions” that would improve as the conflict diminishes.

However, Iranians are aware of Trump’s domestic challenges and may be willing to wait, though questions remain about how long they can prevent economic collapse.

“Iran isn’t fractured or folding, it’s playing for time,” Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy think tank in Washington, wrote on X.

Federal judges nationwide have been sounding warnings about the Trump administration’s repeated failure to comply with their legal directives across hundreds of immigration cases, according to a comprehensive Associated Press investigation.

The AP’s examination of court documents reveals that Trump administration officials have compiled an unprecedented pattern of court order violations across numerous lawsuits that began during the opening weeks of President Donald Trump’s second term in office.

Beginning in February 2025, federal district judges have determined that the Republican administration violated court orders in no fewer than 31 separate lawsuits covering diverse policy areas such as federal funding reductions, widespread government layoffs, deportation procedures, and immigration enforcement policies.

These court order violations come on top of more than 250 documented cases of non-compliance that judges have recently identified in individual immigration proceedings, ranging from failure to return personal belongings to detaining immigrants beyond court-mandated release deadlines.

While Trump administration officials ultimately complied in approximately one-third of the 31 major cases, constitutional law experts warn that this pattern of disregarding judicial orders undermines the nation’s system of governmental checks and balances.

Georgetown University constitutional law professor David Super emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating: “The federal government should be the institution most devoted to the rule of law in this country. When it ceases to feel itself bound, respect for the rule of law is likely to break down across the country.”

The administration has already encountered more than 700 legal challenges since taking office.

The Associated Press conducted its research by analyzing hundreds of pages of court filings from cases identified by nonpartisan government oversight organizations. Additional cases were discovered through media coverage verification and subsequent court record examination.

While previous administrations have also faced court order violation findings from district judges, legal academics and former federal judges indicate they can remember only a handful of such instances during complete four-year presidential terms under recent presidents, including Trump’s first administration and the presidencies of Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended the administration’s actions, claiming that district court judges were issuing “unlawful” decisions against Trump officials.

“President Trump’s entire Administration is lawfully implementing the America First agenda he was elected to enact,” Jackson stated in her written response.

Justice Department lawyers have consistently challenged allegations of government non-compliance through court filings. Their defense strategies have included disputing terminology interpretations, referencing supportive appellate court decisions, and arguing that their actions fell beyond the jurisdiction of specific court orders, among other legal tactics.

Beyond courtroom proceedings, Trump and White House officials have publicly criticized federal judges, with Vice President JD Vance even suggesting that the president might disregard judicial orders entirely.

The entities claiming harm from the administration’s failure to follow court directives represent a broad spectrum, including immigrants, nonprofit organizations, and media professionals.

Specific instances of non-compliance identified by judges include the White House’s defiance of court rulings when it sent dozens of alleged gang members to a high-security El Salvador prison, withheld billions in foreign assistance funding, and failed to reinstate Voice of America programming. These three cases occurred during the administration’s initial months, though judges have continued identifying violations through April, including two additional cases that month.

In 15 of the 31 lawsuits examined by the AP, either appellate courts or the Supreme Court permitted the administration’s core policy, restricted the district court’s ability to address or penalize the non-compliance, or implemented both measures.

Will Chamberlain, senior legal counsel with the conservative advocacy organization The Article III Project, argues these higher court decisions demonstrate that lower court judges are exceeding their authority.

Trump officials are “generally complying, appealing and winning,” Chamberlain explained. “If they were defying orders left and right, they’d be losing them.”

However, critics contend that higher courts are overlooking non-compliance issues.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a June dissent, joined by the court’s two other liberal justices: “This is not the first time the Court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last. Yet each time this Court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”

Federal judges across the country are expressing frustration with what they describe as an unprecedented pattern of Trump administration officials disregarding court rulings during the president’s second term.

The issue came to a head last December when a federal judge struck down the administration’s policy of detaining immigrants indefinitely without bail hearings. Despite the ruling, a senior Justice Department official declared the decision non-binding, and officials continued refusing release opportunities for detainees nationwide.

By February, District Judge Sunshine Sykes had reached her breaking point. The Biden-appointed judge accused Trump officials of attempting “to erode any semblance of separation of powers,” stating they could “only do so in a world where the Constitution does not exist.”

This immigration case represents part of a much larger trend, according to an Associated Press analysis of court documents. During the administration’s first 15 months, federal district judges determined officials violated their orders in no fewer than 31 policy-related cases covering mass layoffs, deportations, budget reductions, and immigration procedures.

This violation rate equals roughly one out of every eight cases where courts have issued temporary blocks against administration actions. The White House’s aggressive policy implementation has triggered more than 700 lawsuits to date.

Beyond these 31 policy cases, judges have identified over 250 additional instances of non-compliance in individual immigration petitions, including failures to return personal property and keeping immigrants detained beyond court-mandated release dates.

Legal experts and former federal judges say they can remember only a handful of similar violations across entire four-year terms of previous administrations, including Trump’s first presidency. They note that past administrations typically expressed regret when confronted by judges, while the current Justice Department has adopted a confrontational stance.

“What the court system is experiencing in the last year and a half is just qualitatively completely different from anything that’s preceded it,” stated Ryan Goodman, a New York University law professor who monitors federal courts and tracks Trump administration litigation.

While Trump officials eventually complied in approximately one-third of the 31 cases, legal scholars warn their approach to court orders creates serious risks.

“The federal government should be the institution most devoted to the rule of law in this country,” explained David Super, a Georgetown University constitutional law expert. “When it ceases to feel itself bound, respect for the rule of law is likely to break down across the country.”

The AP investigation revealed that higher courts, including the Supreme Court, reversed district court decisions and supported the White House in nearly half of the 31 cases. Critics argue these reversals are encouraging the administration to disregard judicial orders.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said higher courts had reversed “unlawful district court rulings.” The administration will “continue to comply with lawful court rulings,” she stated in a written response.

“President Trump’s entire Administration is lawfully implementing the America First agenda he was elected to enact,” the statement declared.

Additional violations identified by judges include the administration deporting dozens of alleged gang members to a dangerous El Salvador prison, withholding billions in foreign assistance, and failing to reinstate Voice of America programming. These three incidents occurred during the administration’s initial months, but judges have continued finding violations, including two cases in April.

“The danger is that this gets normalized,” warned JoAnna Suriani, an attorney with the nonpartisan organization Protect Democracy, which monitors non-compliance cases and participates in administration litigation.

Last October, U.S. District Judge William Smith, appointed by George W. Bush, quickly determined Homeland Security officials were defying his directive. Smith had prevented them from making billions in state disaster relief funding dependent on cooperation with presidential immigration objectives.

DHS responded by maintaining the immigration requirement on certain grants while making it conditional on a higher court overturning Smith’s injunction. The judge labeled the action “ham-handed” and accused DHS of attempting to “bully the states.”

In litigation over refugee admission suspensions, U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead, a Biden appointee, accused the Justice Department last May of “hallucinating new text” in an appellate ruling and “rewriting” it to achieve the government’s desired result.

In four additional cases reviewed by the AP, judges criticized the administration’s response to their orders without making explicit non-compliance findings.

Among judges who confirmed violations, 22 were Democratic appointees and 7 were Republican appointees.

Former federal judges Jeremy Fogel and Liam O’Grady said judges are losing confidence in Justice Department integrity.

This is making them “more aggressive in accusing the government of bad faith,” explained O’Grady, who along with Fogel now works with the nonpartisan democracy organization Keep Our Republic.

Fogel noted judicial frustration is mounting.

“They make orders and the orders don’t get complied with and then they have to inquire why the orders are not being complied with, and that’s where it gets very mushy and very political,” he said.

In Eureka, California, school administrator Lisa Claussen worries about student mental health impacts if a judge doesn’t find the Education Department violated a court order regarding federal grants.

Grant funding enabled the school district in the economically disadvantaged Northern California coastal community to employ more than a dozen psychologists and social workers helping students with substance abuse and suicide prevention.

Trump administration Education officials informed California and other state schools last year they were terminating the grants, opposing diversity considerations in grant allocation.

U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson permanently blocked the action in December, but California and 15 additional states claim the administration is circumventing her injunction through new regulations, including an initial six-month funding limitation.

Education Department lawyers said they wanted to evaluate school progress on performance objectives before releasing additional funding. They added in court documents that the judge’s order didn’t prohibit the six-month restriction.

Evanson, a Biden nominee, hasn’t yet decided.

Without one-year funding guarantees, Eureka City Schools and other districts report they’ve already issued layoff notices to mental health staff or eliminated positions entirely.

“We have many kids who don’t trust adults for very good reason and to be able to just swipe this grant like they’re doing…” Claussen said during a phone conversation, her voice fading. “We didn’t do anything wrong.”

In court documents, Justice Department attorneys have typically disputed government non-compliance allegations. They’ve debated word meanings, referenced favorable appellate decisions, and claimed they were operating beyond court order scope, among other legal strategies.

Outside courtrooms, Trump and White House officials have criticized federal judges. Vice President JD Vance has even suggested the president might disregard court orders.

Will Chamberlain, senior attorney with the conservative legal advocacy organization The Article III Project, said many judges finding violations are ignoring laws that clearly prevent their rulings.

Trump officials are “generally complying, appealing and winning,” he stated. “If they were defying orders left and right, they’d be losing them.”

In March, a federal appeals court determined Sykes, the California judge, had likely overstepped her authority in mandating bond hearings nationwide and blocked her February ruling.

This outcome wasn’t uncommon.

In 15 of the 31 lawsuits the AP examined, an appellate court or Supreme Court either permitted the administration’s underlying policy, restricted the district court’s ability to address or penalize non-compliance, or both.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized her colleagues following one such decision.

“This is not the first time the Court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last,” she wrote in a June dissent joined by the court’s two other liberal justices. “Yet each time this Court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”

Federal emergency officials have started contacting disaster response workers who lost their positions in January to offer them new employment opportunities, according to court documents filed Friday evening. The reversal comes after unions, scientific organizations, and local governments challenged the Trump administration’s controversial staffing decisions in federal court.

U.S. Attorney Craig H. Missakian notified the U.S. District Court in San Francisco that FEMA has “initiated contact to offer new appointments” to temporary employees whose employment ended during the first three weeks of January.

This development follows months of confusion surrounding the fate of FEMA’s temporary disaster response workers, who comprise approximately half of the agency’s total workforce. The announcement also comes after news emerged earlier this week that FEMA had brought back 14 workers who spent eight months on paid administrative leave after they publicly criticized policies at FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security.

These recent moves suggest that current Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is shifting away from the more aggressive personnel policies implemented by former DHS leader Kristi Noem before her dismissal. The changes also spark questions about whether officials are concerned about the agency’s readiness for the upcoming Atlantic hurricane season and major events such as the FIFA World Cup.

FEMA officials declined to provide immediate comment Friday regarding the court filing or specify how many workers received return offers. However, on Thursday an agency representative stated that while FEMA doesn’t discuss specific personnel matters, the organization is “addressing outstanding personnel actions to ensure workforce stability and a strong, deployable surge force for upcoming national events and potential disasters.”

The affected workers belong to FEMA’s Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees, known as CORE, who typically serve two- to four-year terms that have historically been renewed regularly. This flexible system enables the agency to expand and contract its workforce based on operational needs. Approximately 10,000 CORE employees work for the agency, with current and former staff members telling the Associated Press that workers often remain in these temporary roles for decades or until retirement.

FEMA suddenly ceased renewing certain CORE contracts when they expired at the beginning of 2026, while extending others for just 90-day periods. The agency halted these non-renewals in late January, just before a major winter storm affected several states. At that point, 159 CORE workers had lost their positions, according to testimony from FEMA’s interim director, Karen S. Evans.

The American Federation of Government Employees led a legal challenge against the administration’s non-renewal decisions, claiming they were part of a broader strategy to reduce FEMA’s workforce by 50 percent and violated FEMA’s congressional responsibility to maintain national disaster readiness.

In her sworn statement, Evans rejected claims of any “blanket” CORE elimination plan and argued that the non-renewals “do not threaten FEMA’s ability to perform its statutory mandate.”

The impact of FEMA’s latest decision on the ongoing legal case remains uncertain. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs stated Friday evening they would respond “after proper factual investigation.” Legal representatives for the plaintiffs are set to question former DHS Deputy Chief of Staff Joseph Guy next week as part of their investigation into the decision-making process behind the CORE dismissals.

One FEMA worker, speaking anonymously due to lack of authorization to discuss the matter publicly, confirmed knowing of at least two CORE employees who have already received callbacks.

FEMA leadership also announced this week that CORE workers whose contracts expire between January and May and previously received 90-day extensions “may be reappointed for up to one year,” along with those whose agreements end after May, according to internal correspondence reviewed by the Associated Press. “Eligible” FEMA reservists will receive two-year renewals, the communication indicated. Approximately 7,000 reservists in the agency’s emergency response workforce face contract expirations on May 2.

“Our readiness directly impacts our ability to help Americans in need,” the internal message stated, “and every employee plays a critical role in meeting these challenges.”

A federal magistrate judge in Minnesota has determined that military attorneys can legally prosecute civilian defendants in criminal cases that have no connection to military matters.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Shannon Elkins delivered the ruling Friday in Minneapolis during a high-profile case that drew national scrutiny. The decision involved Paul Johnson, a Minnesota man facing charges for allegedly attacking a Customs and Border Protection officer this past January.

The incident occurred during an intensified immigration enforcement operation under the Trump administration in Minnesota. To support these efforts, the Defense Department deployed Judge Advocate General’s Corps attorneys to work alongside the local U.S. Attorney’s Office, similar to deployments that had already taken place in Washington, D.C., and Tennessee.

Johnson’s defense team contended that using JAG attorneys to handle civilian prosecutions without military connections violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal statute that typically prohibits military involvement in civilian law enforcement activities. They also cited Defense Department regulations in their challenge.

The defense motion to remove the military prosecutor from the case attracted significant attention, including support from eleven former JAG officers who filed a legal brief stating the “government has crossed a perilous line.”

However, Judge Elkins ruled in favor of the government, determining that Congress had established exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act through separate legislation. These exceptions grant the attorney general authority to designate JAG lawyers as special assistant U.S. attorneys for civilian prosecutions.

“If Congress passes statutes giving the Department of Justice the authority to appoint active military personnel as SAUSAs to prosecute civilians, that is the law,” Elkins stated in her written decision.

The judge acknowledged that Defense Department guidelines consider it “ill-advised” for JAG attorneys to handle civilian cases without military connections, but noted these internal regulations do not provide legal grounds to remove the military lawyer from Johnson’s prosecution.

Johnson’s attorney Kevin Riach announced plans to challenge the ruling through an appeal. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota has not provided comment on the decision.

The U.S. Air Force announced Friday evening that a Boeing 747 aircraft gifted by Qatar has completed its modification and testing phase and will be available for President Donald Trump’s use as a temporary presidential aircraft this summer.

According to the Air Force’s news release, the aircraft is currently receiving its patriotic red, white and blue paint job.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth approved accepting the luxury aircraft one year ago, despite ethical and legal questions surrounding the acceptance of such an expensive gift from a foreign government, along with security and cyber intelligence worries. Trump has justified accepting the gift as a cost-saving measure for taxpayers.

Trump has stated he will not continue using the aircraft after his presidency concludes. He indicated the plane would be donated to a future presidential library, following the precedent set when President Ronald Reagan’s Boeing 707 was retired and placed on museum display.

According to Air Force officials, the former Qatari aircraft will function as a temporary solution while Boeing prepares to deliver two new aircraft, which are now scheduled for completion in 2028.

The current presidential aircraft have been in service for almost 40 years, and Trump is anxious to replace them. Throughout his first presidency, he showcased a model of a new jumbo jet in the Oval Office, featuring an updated paint design that mirrored the red, white and dark blue colors of his personal aircraft.

Boeing has been working to retrofit 747s that were originally constructed for a Russian airline that no longer exists. However, the program has experienced almost ten years of setbacks due to various problems, including a key subcontractor’s bankruptcy and challenges in finding and keeping qualified personnel who could obtain high-level security clearances.

The replacement aircraft won’t be completed until close to the conclusion of Trump’s term, and his patience has worn thin. He has called the situation “a total mess,” and has expressed frustration that Air Force One doesn’t match the quality of aircraft used by some Arab leaders.

The Qatari aircraft, valued at $400 million, has been characterized as a “palace in the sky,” featuring luxurious amenities and premium finishes.

However, security remains the top priority for presidential transportation. The existing Air Force One aircraft were constructed from the ground up during the final years of the Cold War. They feature nuclear blast protection and include various security systems, such as anti-missile defense technology and an onboard surgical suite. They also have air-to-air refueling equipment for emergency situations, though this capability has never been utilized with a president aboard.

The specific security enhancements added to the former Qatari aircraft remain undisclosed. The Air Force has not revealed the modification costs, though legislators indicated last year that expenses could exceed $1 billion.

Air Force officials reported they leased a 747-8 freighter from Atlas Air from October through February to allow pilots to train on the newest model variant. The U.S. has also acquired two aircraft from German airline Lufthansa for training purposes and spare parts. Boeing ceased 747 production in 2023.

A Louisiana appeals court panel has blocked nationwide access to mifepristone, the medication used for abortion procedures.

The judicial decision eliminates telemedicine access to the abortion drug throughout the United States, at least temporarily.

Former President Donald Trump announced his backing of Kentucky Representative Andy Barr on Friday for the Republican nomination to succeed retiring Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in the U.S. Senate.

“Andy Barr has my Complete and Total Endorsement to be the next United States Senator from Kentucky,” Trump declared on his Truth Social platform.

The congressman will compete against former state Attorney General Daniel Cameron and businessman Nate Morris in the Republican primary scheduled for May 19th.

Trump’s backing was highly sought after by all three GOP contenders in Kentucky, a deeply conservative state where the former president secured 64% of votes in the 2024 election. Both Barr and Morris have featured Trump prominently in their television advertisements, while Morris has also gained financial backing from conservative supporter Elon Musk.

Notably absent from the Republican campaign rhetoric has been any significant discussion of McConnell, highlighting how the party has shifted under Trump’s influence.

Interestingly, all three candidates have personal ties to McConnell. Cameron previously served as a staff member for the senator, Barr has described McConnell as his mentor, and Morris once worked as an intern in McConnell’s office. While Trump previously lauded McConnell as a political partner, he has become increasingly critical of the seven-term senator in recent years.

On the Democratic side, the primary features former state legislator Charles Booker and ex-Marine pilot Amy McGrath. Booker defeated McGrath in a close 2020 Democratic primary before going on to challenge McConnell in the general election.

Kentucky Democrats have not secured a U.S. Senate victory since 1992.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently claimed that a dramatic reduction in food stamp recipients stems from cracking down on fraudulent claims and economic improvements. However, food policy researchers are challenging this explanation, pointing instead to recent congressional legislation that tightened program requirements.

The data shows a significant decline in participation numbers, but the underlying causes tell a different story than what officials suggest.

During a recent statement, Rollins explained: “As of just a couple of days ago, we now have moved 4.3 million Americans off of the food stamp program. A lot of that is fraud. A lot of it is people taking the program that shouldn’t have been. And a lot of it is just a better economy. We’ve had wage growth that has outpaced inflation for the first time since early 2021. This is a really big day. So people don’t need food stamps.”

Government statistics confirm that SNAP participation dropped by approximately 4.3 million individuals between January 2025 and January 2026. However, academic researchers studying food insecurity point to legislative changes as the main factor driving this reduction.

The spending reduction legislation passed by Republicans last summer is expected to slash $186 billion from SNAP funding over a decade, representing a 20% decrease according to Congressional Budget Office projections.

“What we’ve seen in terms of the data is that the trend in participation declines seems to be related to the program being harder to access,” explained Roger Figueroa, a Cornell University assistant professor specializing in food insecurity research from a public health angle.

Research indicates that fraudulent activity within SNAP represents a minimal portion of overall cases, far too small to explain such a substantial participant reduction.

According to the most recent available statistics from fiscal year 2023, authorities disqualified 41,476 individuals for fraudulent activity. This figure encompasses both applicants who provided incorrect information and those who illegally traded benefits for cash or ineligible items. Among the total 42,176,946 participants, fraud cases represented less than one percent.

“I don’t see any evidence supporting a significant reduction in fraud as a driver of what we’re seeing as far as declining SNAP participation,” stated Caitlin Caspi, a University of Connecticut associate professor who researches food insecurity issues.

When asked to provide supporting data for Rollins’ fraud-related claims, USDA officials referred reporters to coverage from the New York Post and Foundation for Government Accountability regarding broad-based categorical eligibility policies. This policy allows SNAP applicants in most states to qualify if they receive non-cash benefits from federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programs or similar state initiatives.

Critics have targeted this eligibility approach for giving states excessive flexibility in determining qualification standards by eliminating asset limits, raising gross income thresholds, or implementing both changes. While the current administration aims to eliminate this policy, it remains legally permissible for now.

Economic performance in 2025 showed mixed results after initial challenges. The gross domestic product contracted during the first quarter for the first time in three years, but recovered during the latter half. Growth slowed in the fourth quarter but picked up momentum in early 2026, expanding at a moderate 2% rate from January through March following recovery from a record 43-day government shutdown.

Despite overall economic strength, food costs continue climbing. Prices increased 3.1% throughout 2025 and are projected to rise another 2.9% in 2026. For families experiencing persistent financial difficulties, broader economic improvements typically provide little relief.

“We have a persistent poverty problem in this country,” noted Kate Bauer, a University of Michigan associate professor of nutritional sciences. “And we have huge economic disparities. And most people, even in good economic times, are not able to pull their families out of poverty.”

While wage increases of 3.4% did exceed inflation rates of 3.3% in March, this wasn’t the first occurrence since 2021 as Rollins suggested. Additionally, higher-income Americans saw greater benefits in 2025 compared to lower-income families, who faced weaker income growth and continued high prices. Employment growth remained slow and unemployment rates increased.

“We’re not seeing a linear kind of drop-off,” Caspi observed. “We are not seeing, if you look at the unemployment rates, things that might be an indicator that a strong economy was driving this change. We don’t see, for example, a pattern of decline in unemployment that would match the pattern of decline in SNAP participation.”

Researchers identify the 940-page “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” also called H.R. 1, as containing the primary factors behind reduced SNAP enrollment. The legislation imposed work requirements on certain adults who previously qualified for exemptions.

SNAP includes two categories of work requirements for eligibility. Standard rules cover most individuals aged 16-59, while able-bodied adults without dependents must meet more demanding criteria that H.R. 1 made even stricter, unless they qualify for specific exemptions. Participants can satisfy these enhanced requirements by working or joining work programs for at least 80 hours monthly, with payment not required.

Previously, able-bodied adults over 54 without dependents were exempt from enhanced requirements. This age threshold has been raised to 64. The legislation also lowered the age of dependent children that qualifies someone for exemption from 18 to 14. Homeless individuals, veterans, and former foster children 24 or younger also lost their exempt status.

“Families have lots of really complicated situations and you can’t just say to people, in 10 days or in one month, go find 80 hours a week of work when you don’t have the skills and those jobs aren’t available in your community,” Bauer explained.

SNAP eligibility covers U.S. citizens and certain lawful immigrants, though H.R. 1 removed qualification for groups including refugees and asylum seekers.

When Trump began his second presidential term in January 2025, approximately 42.83 million people participated in SNAP. This number fell nearly 10% by January 2026 to roughly 38.55 million. Most of this decline occurred during the year’s second half, following Trump’s signing of H.R. 1 in July. Participation decreased by only 743,572 people from January through June 2025, but dropped by about 3.47 million from July 2025 through January 2026.

Congressional Budget Office analysts had predicted this sharp reduction, estimating in an August 2025 report that specific provisions would “reduce participation in SNAP by roughly 2.4 million people in an average month over the 2025-2034 period.”

“It shouldn’t be surprising that we are seeing this decline and it shouldn’t be a leap in logic to think that these declines are attributable to H.R. 1.,” Caspi concluded.

A federal appeals court has significantly limited nationwide abortion access by prohibiting the mail distribution of mifepristone, one of the most widely used abortion medications.

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel mandated that the abortion medication can only be dispensed through in-person visits to medical facilities.

The court’s decision stated: “Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that ‘every unborn child is human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person.’”

Historically, federal judges have typically respected the Food and Drug Administration’s expertise regarding medication safety and regulatory standards.

Under the Trump administration, FDA officials have indicated they are conducting a fresh safety evaluation of mifepristone following presidential directives.

The court noted that the FDA “could not say when that review might be complete and admitted it was still collecting data.”

Louisiana’s attorney general, along with a woman claiming she was pressured into using abortion medication, filed court documents seeking to reverse FDA regulations back to when the pills required in-person prescription and distribution.

Last month, a Louisiana federal judge determined that current regulations conflicted with the state’s abortion restrictions but declined to immediately overturn the rules.

Following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision eliminating Roe v. Wade protections and enabling state abortion bans, mail-order prescriptions have emerged as a primary method for providing abortions, including in states with prohibitions.

“This is going to affect patients’ access to abortion and miscarriage care in every state in the nation,” said Julia Kaye, an ACLU lawyer. “When telemedicine is restricted, rural communities, people with low incomes, people with disabilities, survivors of intimate partner violence and communities of color suffer the most.”

The ruling is anticipated to prompt an appeal to the Supreme Court.

While the conservative-dominated Supreme Court eliminated constitutional abortion protections in 2022, it unanimously maintained mifepristone access two years afterward.

However, that 2024 ruling avoided addressing fundamental issues by determining that the anti-abortion physicians who brought the lawsuit lacked proper legal standing to pursue the case.

BATON ROUGE, La. — Days before a wrongfully convicted man was scheduled to begin his new role as an elected court official, Louisiana’s Republican leadership has dissolved the position entirely.

Governor Jeff Landry signed legislation on Thursday that wipes out the Orleans Parish criminal court clerk office, according to Trey Williams, a spokesperson for Louisiana’s Secretary of State.

The GOP maintains this move represents a streamlining initiative designed to boost efficiency within the local court system while reducing expenses. However, Democratic officials characterize the action as excessive governmental interference that undermines the voting choices of a primarily Black community.

Calvin Duncan, who endured almost three decades of imprisonment for a murder he never committed, secured a decisive victory for the criminal court clerk role last November. He defeated the sitting officeholder with more than two-thirds of voter support and was scheduled to begin his duties this coming Monday. Duncan has petitioned a federal court to permit him to assume office as originally planned.

“It’s a sad thing to see the state government repeating what happened to Black public officials during Reconstruction,” Duncan said. “They will do what they do, and I will do whatever I have to do to vindicate the voters of New Orleans and make sure that what happened to me never happens to anybody else.”

Governor Landry has not responded to media inquiries seeking comment.

The 63-year-old Democrat, whose murder conviction was thrown out in 2021 when evidence surfaced showing police officers had provided false testimony, has pledged to reform the judicial system that wronged him. Duncan’s name appears on the National Registry of Exonerations.

Duncan and his allies believe he’s being singled out by Louisiana’s most influential Republican politicians, including some who continue to question his innocence despite his official exoneration.

“We’re doing something because powerful people don’t like him,” Rep. Mandie Landry, a New Orleans Democrat, told fellow legislators during an April committee session. The representative, who shares no family connection with the governor, called the Republican initiative “atrocious” and expressed concern about potential impacts on other elected offices statewide.

Republican supporters argue the new law merges Orleans Parish’s separate civil and criminal court clerk operations, bringing the parish in line with every other Louisiana parish that operates a single clerk’s office. The civil clerk position will continue and take on the criminal clerk’s responsibilities.

Dissolving the clerk role will save the state approximately $27,000 and the city $233,000, according to legislative auditor estimates, though the analysis notes that future consolidation costs remain “unknown.” The legislation also transfers roughly $1.17 million in state spending to parish responsibility. The civil and criminal clerk offices currently operate from different locations with separate case management systems.

In a statement to The Associated Press, the governor said eliminating Duncan’s elected position focused on enhancing governmental efficiency and “cleaning up a system in Orleans Parish that has been plagued by dysfunction and corruption for years.”

This consolidation represents part of a wider Republican initiative during the current legislative session to restructure New Orleans’ judicial system, including proposals to eliminate several other elected judicial positions within the parish. Those additional positions, however, would be phased out later, allowing current officials to complete their terms.

The legislation’s Republican sponsor, Sen. Jay Morris, whose district lies several hours away from New Orleans, stated his objective was implementing the clerk merger before Duncan assumes office, preventing him from beginning a four-year term. Morris has acknowledged anticipating legal challenges to the new law but believes it passes constitutional scrutiny.

“It’s unfortunate for Mr. Duncan, I concede that,” Morris told lawmakers in April. “He seems very nice, but we don’t make policy around here for just one person.”

While discussions have centered on Duncan, many observers express concerns about how this change might effectively nullify voter choices — a particularly sensitive issue in a heavily Republican state that has championed efforts to weaken the Voting Rights Act. Orleans Parish serves as a Democratic stronghold with a majority Black voting population.

“Mr. Duncan was elected by 68% of the vote in a city that’s majority African American. This is the will of the people, and what your bill attempts to do is usurp the will of the people,” Rep. Edmond Jordan, a Democrat, told Morris.

Even before the legislation reached the governor for signature, Duncan anticipated the outcome. Prior to the final decision, Duncan’s supporters organized a symbolic inauguration ceremony. Hundreds of people assembled on the Orleans Parish criminal courthouse steps to demonstrate support for the exoneree.

Duncan informed legislators that during his campaign last year, he encountered many individuals who typically avoid participating in elections: “Now, this bill tells people exactly what they had believed — that their vote doesn’t count.”

A Manhattan federal judge issued an emergency ruling Friday preventing the Trump administration from deporting roughly 3,000 Yemeni refugees, temporarily extending their protective status that was scheduled to expire Monday.

Judge Dale E. Ho granted the temporary extension while litigation challenging the deportation proceeds. In his emergency decision, Ho emphasized that those receiving this protection are law-abiding individuals whom federal officials previously determined would face safety risks if returned to Yemen during its ongoing armed conflict.

The Trump administration has eliminated Temporary Protected Status for individuals from nine nations, including Haiti, Venezuela and Ethiopia, as part of its broader immigration enforcement efforts. Without Ho’s intervention, protections for Yemeni refugees would have ended Monday, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Those holding Temporary Protected Status can legally remain in the United States, cannot be deported, and may obtain work permits and travel documents.

Ho sharply criticized former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in his decision, stating that Congress established specific procedures for modifying or ending Temporary Protected Status, which she failed to follow.

The judge specifically condemned a December social media post where Noem stated she had met with President Donald Trump and was recommending a comprehensive travel ban “on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.”

On February 13, Noem announced through a news release that Yemen’s Temporary Protected Status would end, declaring that allowing them to remain was “contrary to our national interest.”

“TPS holders from Yemen are not ‘killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies,’” Ho stated at the beginning of his conclusion in the 36-page ruling.

The judge highlighted specific cases among the 2,810 Yemenis with current TPS status and 425 applicants, including a 33-year-old pregnant Detroit woman expecting to deliver this month whose unborn child has a heart defect untreatable in Yemen, and a 50-year-old former human rights advocate in Brooklyn who faces targeting by Houthi-aligned militias in Yemen.

“Temporary means temporary and the final word will not be from activist judges legislating from the bench,” the U.S. Department of Homeland Security responded in a statement.

“Allowing TPS Yemen beneficiaries to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to our national interest,” the department continued, stressing that the Trump administration is “returning TPS to its original temporary intent.”

Razeen Zaman, director of immigrant rights at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, praised Ho’s decision, stating that “the court has made clear that humanitarian statutes like TPS cannot be used as a deportation pipeline.”

Zaman noted in a statement that Homeland Security had acknowledged the danger of returning Yemeni refugees to their homeland “but terminated their protection anyway.”

Zaman said Ho’s decision “affirms that protection must be based on facts and conditions on the ground, not on the political appetite to end it.”

Noem made her announcement to terminate Yemen’s Temporary Protected Status in February. The Department of Homeland Security stated Friday that she had assessed conditions in Yemen and consulted with government agencies before concluding that Yemen no longer satisfied the legal criteria for temporary status.

The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund shared statements from several lawsuit participants in its press release celebrating Ho’s decision.

One plaintiff, using a pseudonym for safety reasons, wrote that those fighting to maintain protections for Yemenis were “doctors, engineers, and pilots like myself, and also drivers, deli workers, and countless other people who contribute meaningfully every day, supporting not just our own families but the broader fabric of society.”

He continued that their presence “represents resilience, skill, and dedication — values that strengthen the nation as a whole.”

Another plaintiff, also using a pseudonym, called Ho’s ruling “a lifeline for my family.” She added: “It is the moment we finally breathed a sigh of relief after months of existential anxiety.”

Yemen first received Temporary Protected Status designation in 2015, approximately one year after the country’s civil conflict commenced.

As the warfare continued, both the Obama and Biden administrations renewed the designation repeatedly, most recently in 2024, when officials calculated that 2,300 Yemenis were eligible to reregister for protected status and that 1,700 Yemenis qualified for the first time.

Ho referenced additional recent court decisions that have allowed individuals fleeing other nations under various circumstances to remain in the United States.

A longtime champion of civil rights is expressing confusion and concern following the Supreme Court’s latest decision regarding voting rights protections.

Leslie McLemore, who has dedicated decades to advancing civil rights causes, is weighing in on how the high court’s recent ruling on the Voting Rights Act could affect African American political participation throughout Southern states.

The activist describes the court’s decision as puzzling, raising questions about the future of voting protections that have been cornerstones of civil rights progress.

McLemore’s perspective comes as communities across the region grapple with understanding what changes the Supreme Court ruling might bring to electoral processes and minority representation in government.

A Justice Department panel established by President Donald Trump has released findings claiming Christians faced widespread bias during Joe Biden’s presidency, pointing to incidents involving education policies, tax regulations, and prosecutions of abortion clinic protesters.

The Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias released its 200-page findings on Thursday, drawing immediate pushback from progressive organizations who characterized the document as political advocacy masquerading as legitimate investigation.

According to the task force, which included multiple Cabinet officials, conflicts arose “When Christian beliefs about morality and human nature conflicted with the Biden Administration’s views, religious rights often suffered.”

While the panel stopped short of claiming Biden’s team suppressed churches or worship services directly, it argued his administration took aggressive stances against faith-based advocates promoting conservative positions on abortion access, gender policies, educational content, and vaccination exemptions.

The document states: “The Biden Administration generally tolerated religious beliefs that were privately held but zealously pursued actions to limit Christians’ ability to act in accordance with their faith.”

Georgetown University’s Center on Faith and Justice executive director Jim Simpson dismissed the findings as “advocacy dressed up as investigation.” Simpson argued the report incorrectly treats policy disputes as “evidence of anti-Christian bias rather than the normal functioning of a pluralistic democracy.” He also questioned framing Christians, who comprise nearly two-thirds of Americans, as “a persecuted minority despite being the country’s largest and most politically influential religious group.”

The task force highlighted Justice Department prosecutions of anti-abortion demonstrators who illegally blocked clinic access, suggesting these cases received harsher treatment than threats against pregnancy resource centers, which are frequently operated by Christian organizations encouraging women to avoid abortions. The report referenced a group convicted in federal court and imprisoned after invading a Washington abortion facility, whom Trump pardoned in 2025.

One controversial section accused Biden of “replacing Easter” with Transgender Day of Visibility, which occurs annually on March 31st and happened to coincide with Easter in 2024. The report called this a “profound lack of consideration for the Christian faith,” though Biden actually issued proclamations recognizing both observances.

The document criticized the Biden administration for displaying Pride flags at U.S. embassies, including at the Vatican, despite varying Christian perspectives on LGBTQ+ matters, with some progressive congregations embracing Pride symbols while conservative denominations typically oppose same-sex marriage and transgender rights.

Melissa Rogers, who directed the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships under Biden, contrasted the presidents’ Easter communications. “President Biden spent Easter and Orthodox Easter wishing Christians worldwide joyful Resurrection Sundays, not by pretending to be Jesus, by tweeting profanities, and by attacking the pope,” she stated.

Rogers emphasized Biden’s Catholic faith and noted his administration regularly collaborated with Christian and other religious leaders on various issues, from sanctuary security to immigration to COVID-19 clinic support.

The report criticized a Biden-era Justice Department memorandum addressing potential violence and threats against school boards. Though these discussions never resulted in federal action, then-Attorney General Merrick Garland defended the initiative as violence prevention, not policy debate suppression. The task force didn’t explicitly explain how this constituted anti-Christian bias, though many school board meetings during that period featured conservative Christians and others opposing policies and curricula regarding gender and race topics.

Additional criticisms included federal agencies denying Christians exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination requirements and regulators instructing a Catholic hospital in Oklahoma to extinguish its chapel candle due to fire hazards near oxygen equipment. The hospital ultimately retained the candle after installing barriers and warning signs.

The report also highlighted what it characterized as disproportionate fines against two Christian universities by Biden’s Department of Education: Grand Canyon University for allegedly misleading students about program costs, and Liberty University for failing to properly disclose crime statistics. The Trump administration has cleared Grand Canyon University and eliminated its fine.

Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, criticized the report for presenting “cherry-picked anecdotes” that don’t demonstrate systematic persecution. “To the extent that the government ever did overreach or violate the law in any of these examples, the courts of law, not a partisan political report, provide the right venue to settle any legal disputes,” she said. “Focusing government resources on this narrow issue while ignoring or discounting the much more widespread instances of anti-religious discrimination against other faith groups in the U.S. further harms religious freedom for all.”

The findings emerge as another Trump-created entity, the Religious Liberty Commission, prepares its own report featuring similar complaints heard during its hearings.

A political earthquake in Maine has delivered a sharp rebuke to Democratic Party leadership nationwide.

Governor Janet Mills withdrew from her U.S. Senate race on Thursday after failing to build adequate financial support or voter excitement to challenge Graham Platner, an oyster farmer with no previous political experience. The development represents a significant blow to Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who had personally recruited Mills for the party’s long-standing effort to unseat Republican Senator Susan Collins.

The rapid political downfall of a sitting two-term governor at the hands of a complete political outsider underscores a growing trend emerging at a crucial time — Democratic voters are turning away from their party’s established figures and embracing untested alternatives, even as confidence builds around potential November midterm gains.

Democratic voters appear nearly as frustrated with their own party’s aging, entrenched leadership as they are with President Donald Trump.

“Rank-and-file Democrats don’t want the Democratic Party as we know it,” said Ezra Levin, co-founder of the Democratic resistance group Indivisible. “Rank-and-file Democrats want fighters.”

Progressive leaders including Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, along with local Indivisible chapters, had already thrown their support behind Platner, who now appears virtually guaranteed to secure the Democratic nomination in what many consider one of the party’s top Senate pickup opportunities nationwide.

Speaking Friday, Platner vowed to maintain his criticism of party leadership, including Schumer, despite acknowledging a private conversation between the two the previous evening.

“The fact that we’ve been able to do all of this without the help of the establishment, it puts us in such an amazing position,” Platner said on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe.” “My criticisms of the party leadership, my criticisms of the party, they have not changed, and I’ve been very vocal about that since the beginning. But we will absolutely take the help that we can get.”

Republicans are celebrating the development, while some moderate Democratic strategists express concern that this anti-establishment movement could damage the party’s chances of regaining Congressional control in November.

“Chuck Schumer has officially lost the first battle in his proxy war with Bernie Sanders,” said Bernadette Breslin, spokesperson for the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm. “As Sanders hits the campaign trail to prop up progressives in messy Democrat primaries in Michigan and Minnesota, Schumer’s chances of getting his preferred candidates through look grim.”

The Maine situation is not an isolated incident.

Similar anti-establishment battles are unfolding in major Senate contests throughout Michigan, Minnesota and Iowa, alongside House races in multiple states.

Sanders, who identifies as a democratic socialist, continues supporting Platner and other critics of Democratic Party national leadership. The Vermont senator plans to campaign this weekend in Detroit alongside Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, who faces a three-way primary battle against Representative Haley Stevens and state Senator Mallory McMorrow.

“There’s a desire to turn the page on the old guard,” Sanders’ political adviser Faiz Shakir said. “It’s not even just the Democratic electorate. There’s a populist mood in this country. You’d have to be blind not to see it.”

McMorrow has been actively emphasizing to voters that she would oppose Schumer as Democrats’ Senate leader if given the opportunity.

“Frankly, I was the first person in this country to say no,” McMorrow said in a video she posted Thursday on social media. “It is a different moment. This is no longer a Republican Party we’re dealing with, it is a MAGA party that has been taken over by Trump loyalists. … You need to respond in a very different way.”

Experienced Democratic strategists like Lis Smith, who advises candidates nationally, connected this anti-establishment movement to the party’s devastating 2024 losses, when President Joe Biden was compelled to end his reelection campaign and Vice President Kamala Harris subsequently lost to Trump.

“After 2024, voters are sick of the gerontocracy, sick of the status quo, and Chuck Schumer has completely misread that,” Smith said.

Behind closed doors, Schumer’s supporters minimize the significance of the anti-establishment pushback.

The Senate Democratic leader’s preferred candidates in North Carolina, Ohio and Alaska have not encountered the same difficulties Mills experienced in Maine. These four states constitute the party’s most viable pathway to a chamber majority, which currently consists of 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who align with Democrats.

Mills, at 78, would have become the oldest freshman senator in history and had committed to serving just one term if elected. Platner is only 41 years old.

Schumer’s team refuses to apologize for supporting Mills over Platner.

“Leader Schumer’s North Star is taking back the Senate,” Schumer spokesperson Allison Biasotti said. “When no one thought a Senate majority was possible just a year ago, he made it a reality by recruiting great candidates across the country and laying out an agenda for lower costs and better lives for Americans.”

Members of the Democratic Party’s moderate faction are expressing anxiety.

Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left organization Third Way, stated that Platner’s rise in Maine “without a doubt” will complicate Democratic efforts to defeat Collins in November. He cautioned that similar outcomes could occur elsewhere if Democratic primary voters continue supporting anti-establishment candidates.

“Our message is if you would like to beat Donald Trump’s Republicans, you better nominate people who can win,” Bennett said.

Following a Supreme Court ruling that eliminated a predominantly Black congressional district in Louisiana, Republican leaders across multiple states are launching efforts to redraw electoral boundaries, escalating nationwide redistricting conflicts.

Louisiana postponed its May 16 congressional primary to give legislators time to create new U.S. House districts. Former President Donald Trump is pushing additional states to pursue redistricting changes before November’s midterm elections, which will decide Republican control of the narrowly divided House.

Trump previously encouraged Texas Republicans to redesign House districts for partisan advantage. California Democrats followed suit with similar actions. Additional states subsequently entered the redistricting fight, with lawmakers, commissions, or courts establishing new House districts across eight states.

This number may increase following the Supreme Court’s ruling that substantially diminished a key section of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Here’s how various states are reacting to the Supreme Court decision:

LOUISIANA
Current House composition: two Democrats, four Republicans

Early voting was scheduled to start Saturday for Louisiana’s primaries. However, Republican Governor Jeff Landry acted swiftly Thursday to delay the congressional primary while permitting other office elections to proceed.

A federal lawsuit filed Thursday on behalf of a Democratic congressional candidate and voter requested court intervention to stop Landry’s directive and maintain the original House primary schedule. The lawsuit noted that thousands of absentee ballots had already been distributed and many returned completed.

Additionally, a three-judge federal court panel that handled the case appealed to the Supreme Court issued Thursday orders suspending Louisiana’s congressional primary.

Republican legislative leaders in both chambers indicated readiness to enact new U.S. House districts and establish a fresh primary date before their session concludes in one month.

ALABAMA
Current House composition: two Democrats, five Republicans

Alabama officials Thursday submitted an emergency Supreme Court motion requesting expedited review of a pending redistricting appeal.

A 2023 federal court mandated creation of a new near-majority Black district in Alabama, leading to election of a second Black U.S. House representative. Alabama must use this new map through the 2030 census under court order.

A Supreme Court appeal claims the map constitutes illegal racial gerrymandering, similar to arguments made regarding Louisiana.

The state seeks removal of an injunction preventing use of the 2023 Republican-controlled Legislature map that excluded the new district.

State primaries are scheduled for May 19. Republican Governor Kay Ivey stated Wednesday that the state cannot “hold a special session at this time” for redistricting.

FLORIDA
Current House composition: eight Democrats, 20 Republicans

Within hours of the Supreme Court decision, Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature passed new U.S. House districts potentially helping the GOP secure up to four additional November seats.

Republican Governor Ron DeSantis convened a special legislative session before knowing the Supreme Court’s Louisiana ruling timing. However, DeSantis expressed certainty about the court’s eventual decision. The new map modifies a southeastern Florida district that DeSantis claimed was designed to elect a Black representative for federal Voting Rights Act compliance.

A 2010 Florida constitutional amendment approved by voters prevents districts from being drawn to reduce racial or language minorities’ ability to choose their representatives. DeSantis considers this amendment unconstitutional under federal law. Courts are expected to resolve this issue.

TENNESSEE
Current House composition: one Democrat, eight Republicans

The Tennessee General Assembly recently concluded its annual session. Nevertheless, pressure is mounting to recall lawmakers for congressional district revisions.

Trump posted on social media Thursday about speaking with Republican Governor Bill Lee, who Trump said would work diligently for a new map potentially helping Republicans gain another seat. Democrats currently hold just one seat – a Memphis-centered district with a Black majority.

Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, confirmed ongoing discussions with the White House and others while examining the court’s ruling.

The state’s candidate filing period ended in March. Primary elections are set for August 6.

MISSISSIPPI
Current House composition: one Democrat, three Republicans

Mississippi conducted its U.S. House primaries in March. The Supreme Court decision may impact other office elections.

Republican Governor Tate Reeves previously announced plans to call a special legislative session for redrawing state Supreme Court voting districts, beginning 21 days after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Louisiana ruling. This timeline places the special session start around May 20.

A federal judge last year required Mississippi to redesign its Supreme Court voting districts after determining they violated the Voting Rights Act by weakening Black voter influence. Mississippi lawmakers awaited the Louisiana decision before proceeding, but their legislative session ended in April.

Reeves stated in his proclamation that the Supreme Court decision would guide lawmakers on whether “race-conscious redistricting” violates the U.S. Constitution.

GEORGIA
Current House composition: five Democrats, nine Republicans

Early voting began April 27 and continues for several weeks before Georgia’s May 19 primary elections.

Republican Governor Brian Kemp said it’s too late for Georgia officials to modify congressional districts for this year’s elections since voting has already started. However, he indicated the Supreme Court decision’s reasoning “requires Georgia to adopt new electoral maps before the 2028 election cycle.”

President Donald Trump has selected Dr. Nicole Saphier, a radiologist and former Fox News contributor, as his new nominee for U.S. Surgeon General following the collapse of his previous candidate’s confirmation process.

The nomination comes after Dr. Casey Means withdrew from consideration when it became apparent she lacked sufficient Senate committee support to move forward with her confirmation.

Saphier works as director of breast imaging at Memorial Sloan Kettering Monmouth and holds credentials including a medical degree from Ross University School of Medicine in Barbados and fellowships from the Mayo Clinic. She has received endorsement from medical organizations, with American College of Radiology President Dr. Dana Smetherman describing her Thursday as a “tireless advocate for women’s health.”

The radiologist has expressed support for various elements of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again initiative, particularly efforts to eliminate food additives, reduce consumption of ultraprocessed foods, and promote physical activity.

However, Saphier has demonstrated stronger support for vaccination programs compared to Kennedy and has occasionally criticized the Trump administration’s health policy management as “embarrassing.”

Should the Senate confirm her appointment, Saphier would gain authority to issue public health advisories and warnings. The surgeon general position traditionally serves as a platform for advocating vaccination policies, though it doesn’t establish vaccine requirements.

Means, the failed previous nominee who graduated from Stanford University but didn’t complete her surgical residency in Oregon and maintains an inactive medical license, faced intense questioning from senators across party lines regarding her qualifications and vaccination positions. She attributed her unsuccessful nomination to what she called a “yearlong smear campaign.”

Saphier joins several Fox News personalities Trump has recruited for his administration. His initial surgeon general selection, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, also worked as a network contributor before her nomination collapsed amid questions about her academic background.

Beyond her medical practice, Saphier hosts a podcast called “Wellness Unmasked with Dr. Nicole Saphier” and has authored books. She actually used the phrase “Make America Healthy Again” years before Kennedy adopted it, featuring it as the title of her 2020 book that criticized government healthcare management and the Affordable Care Act.

As a mother of three sons, Saphier frequently discusses her decision to continue an unexpected pregnancy at age 17 and advocates for increased support for mothers making similar choices.

Like Means, Saphier has raised questions about certain aspects of childhood vaccination schedules, specifically questioning the universal hepatitis B vaccine given at birth – a long-standing recommendation the Trump administration has attempted to modify.

She shares Kennedy’s opposition to COVID-19 vaccination mandates in schools, stating on her September podcast that such requirements were “a complete disaster” and contributed to declining vaccination confidence.

While supporting immunization generally, Saphier argues patients should retain autonomy over medical decisions. In March, she commended acting CDC Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for encouraging Americans to receive measles vaccinations.

“The more vaccine confusion we create, the more preventable disease we will see,” she stated in September, urging the administration to establish clearer policies “because it’s really upsetting.”

Despite generally supporting the Trump administration, Saphier has publicly criticized several health-related missteps. Last summer, she condemned the administration’s initial MAHA report, which referenced hundreds of studies, including some that didn’t exist.

“There were a lot of flaws in this report,” she said on her podcast. “In fact, it was pretty embarrassing.”

She also called Kennedy’s dismissal of his first CDC director, Susan Monarez, after less than a month “a mess.”

“When we keep hearing radical transparency and we’re going to regain trust, I can tell you these shenanigans are taking us farther away from that mission,” Saphier said on her podcast.

In correspondence with the Associated Press last year, Saphier characterized Trump’s advice discouraging pregnant women from taking Tylenol due to unproven autism connections as overly simplistic. She emphasized that Trump’s message failed to acknowledge that untreated fever or severe pain can also create serious risks for mothers and babies.

Following Means’ confirmation hearings earlier this year, Saphier expressed confidence that Means would perform well as surgeon general but wished she were “a little bit less involved with MAHA.”

“I’d really like to see a little bit more reaching across the aisle when it comes to public health,” Saphier said. “That doesn’t mean it has to be some Democratic nominee for surgeon general, maybe just someone a little less aligned with the MAHA movement who, I don’t know, finished their residency and has an active medical license.”

Some prominent MAHA supporters have expressed skepticism about Saphier. Turning Point USA podcaster and anti-pesticide activist Alex Clark posted Friday that Saphier “gets an F when it comes to all things MAHA.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced Friday that his administration continues to evaluate a potential government-funded rescue of Spirit Airlines.

Speaking to reporters before departing the White House for Florida, Trump provided few specifics about the proposal but indicated an announcement could come within the next day or two.

“We’re looking at it. If we could do it, we’ll do it. But only if it’s a good deal,” Trump stated.

The president expressed interest in preserving employment at the budget carrier and revealed his administration has presented Spirit with “a final proposal.”

“We’re looking at Spirit and if we can help them, we will. But we have to come first,” he explained.

Trump drew comparisons to his administration’s previous arrangement that made the federal government a significant shareholder in Intel, the semiconductor company, though he noted this situation was “a different kind of a thing.”

The president initially suggested this taxpayer-funded acquisition concept the previous week, proposing the government could eventually sell the airline at a profit once fuel prices decline following the Iran conflict.

According to court proceedings, a Spirit representative informed a U.S. Bankruptcy Court seven days ago that the airline was engaged in serious negotiations with federal officials regarding a financing arrangement that could help the company emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The potential rescue has garnered support from labor organizations representing Spirit’s cockpit crews and cabin staff, who contend that the low-cost airline’s failure would eliminate jobs and drive up ticket prices for consumers.

However, legislators from both major political parties have voiced opposition, expressing concern about using public funds and questioning whether federal intervention would essentially rescue a company with poor recovery prospects.

The airline known for its distinctive bright yellow aircraft has faced financial difficulties for an extended period. Spirit entered bankruptcy proceedings in November 2024 and filed again in August 2025.

As the Iran conflict continues to inflate jet fuel expenses across the aviation industry, Spirit’s creditors recently questioned the company’s operational viability, suggesting the airline might need to liquidate its assets and cease operations entirely.

A federal jury in Miami delivered guilty verdicts Friday against former Republican Representative David Rivera and political consultant Esther Nuhfer for their roles in an undisclosed $50 million influence campaign benefiting Venezuela’s government during Donald Trump’s first presidency.

The convictions encompass multiple charges, including violations of foreign agent registration requirements and conspiracy to launder money while working for former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s administration.

Rivera maintained his stoic demeanor as jurors announced their decision, mirroring his behavior throughout the proceedings.

Despite previously being released on bail, Rivera was immediately detained after Judge Melissa Damian determined he presented an escape risk due to his substantial financial resources, potential lengthy imprisonment, and pending federal charges in Washington, D.C., connected to similar foreign lobbying violations.

The seven-week proceedings provided an unusual window into Miami’s position as a hub for international influence operations targeting U.S. Latin American policy, emphasizing the city’s status as a center for both corruption and anti-Communist activism within its substantial exile community.

Testimony came from notable figures including Rubio, Texas Representative Pete Sessions, and a prominent Washington lobbyist — all expressing surprise upon discovering Rivera’s consulting agreement with a domestic subsidiary of Venezuela’s national oil corporation, PDVSA.

According to an 11-count federal indictment made public in 2022, Rivera was recruited by then-Foreign Minister Delcy Rodríguez — currently Venezuela’s acting president — to leverage his Republican congressional relationships to persuade Trump’s first administration to soften its aggressive position and reduce devastating economic sanctions against Venezuela.

Federal prosecutors contended that Rivera and Nuhfer manipulated prominent contacts, including Rubio and Sessions, treating them like “pawns on a chess board” in their influence campaign. Their objective was normalizing diplomatic ties with Trump’s team while the Maduro administration faced severe human rights allegations.

“As long as the money kept coming in, they didn’t care from where,” prosecutor Roger Cruz told jurors during final arguments regarding the defendants.

However, the pair maintained their “massive secret” and failed to report their lobbying activities as legally required, fearing disclosure would destroy Rivera’s political reputation as an anti-Communist leader, Cruz explained.

To conceal his activities, federal authorities claim Rivera established an encrypted messaging group named MIA — representing Miami — with his primary connection to Maduro’s government: Venezuelan media mogul Raúl Gorrín, who later faced U.S. bribery charges for corrupting top Venezuelan officials.

Group participants employed coded language for their operations: Maduro became the “bus driver,” Sessions was “Sombrero,” Rodríguez was “The Lady in Red,” and millions of dollars were “melons,” based on text message evidence shown to jurors.

“It was all about La Luz,” Cruz stated, referencing the Spanish term for light, which Rivera’s group repeatedly used when discussing payments from Caracas.

Defense lawyers for Rivera and Nuhfer argued their clients operated honestly and believed disclosure wasn’t necessary. They claimed the three-month, $50 million agreement with Rivera’s individual consulting business exclusively focused on encouraging oil corporation ExxonMobil to return to Venezuela — commercial activity typically excluded from Foreign Agents Registration Act requirements.

They maintained Rivera’s discussions with Rubio and Sessions were completely separate from his consulting work, occurring after the contract ended and aimed at promoting Venezuelan leadership change that would improve U.S. relations.

“He was working every possible angle to get Nicolás Maduro out,” defense attorney Ed Shohat argued in closing statements. “There was not a word in the chats about normalizing relations.”

Nuhfer’s lawyer, David Oscar Markus, compared the prosecution’s case to Salem’s 17th-century witch trials, suggesting prosecutors assumed malicious intent based on weak evidence.

“My client does not have a dark heart,” he declared.

Federal prosecutors maintained Rivera exploited his contract with New York-based PDV USA to disguise illegal lobbying activities.

After exposure, the defendants attempted concealing their work by falsifying document dates and creating fraudulent agreements, including one justifying a $3.75 million wire transfer to a South Florida business managing Gorrín’s luxury yacht.

Their political activities included arranging Rodríguez meetings in New York, Caracas, Washington and Dallas. During this effort, they involved Sessions, who later attempted facilitating a meeting between Rodríguez and ExxonMobil’s CEO, who had succeeded Trump’s former secretary of state, Rex Tillerson. Following a private Caracas meeting with Maduro, Sessions also agreed to deliver correspondence from the Venezuelan president to Trump.

The outreach effort collapsed rapidly. Within six months of assuming office, Trump imposed sanctions on Maduro and branded him a “dictator,” initiating a “maximum pressure” strategy to remove the president.

Nevertheless, nearly ten years later, Rodríguez has become the second Trump administration’s reliable partner following the U.S. military’s removal of Maduro.

Prior to his 2010 congressional election, Rivera served as a senior Florida state legislator. During that period, he lived with Rubio in Tallahassee, who later became Florida House speaker.

Rivera’s past includes various controversies, such as accusations of secretly financing a Democratic spoiler candidate in a 2012 congressional election. Federal prosecutors dismissed that case last year after an appeals court overturned a substantial fine from a lower court. Rivera also faced investigation — though no charges — for alleged campaign finance violations and a $1 million gambling company contract while serving in Florida’s legislature.

President Donald Trump announced Friday that he held a conversation with Ali al-Zaidi, Iraq’s newly nominated prime minister, during which he pledged America’s complete backing for the incoming leader.

Speaking to members of the press prior to his departure from the White House for Florida, Trump expressed enthusiasm about the development. “With our help, he won, and we want him to do very well. And I told him that the United States is with him all the way. It was a great victory, the new head of Iraq is somebody that we support, very strongly,” the president stated.

Earlier this week on Monday, Iraq’s Coordination Framework, which represents an alliance of Shiite political groups, announced Zaidi as their selection for the prime ministerial position, according to a statement from the coalition.

The United States continues its efforts to strengthen diplomatic relationships with Baghdad as the region faces persistent tensions and ongoing security challenges.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump announced Friday his administration will impose 25% tariffs on automobiles and trucks imported from European Union countries, citing alleged violations of existing trade agreements.

The president made the announcement through a social media post, stating the new tariffs will take effect next week. “Based on the fact the European Union is not complying with our fully agreed to Trade Deal, next week I will be increasing Tariffs charged to the European Union for Cars and Trucks coming into the United States,” Trump wrote in his post.

The president also clarified that European automakers could avoid the tariffs by manufacturing their vehicles domestically. “It is fully understood and agreed that, if they produce Cars and Trucks in U.S.A. Plants, there will be NO TARIFF,” Trump added in his social media statement.

The announcement comes amid ongoing trade tensions between the United States and European Union partners.

For over ten years, Melani Candia has successfully renewed her immigration status every two years, allowing her to remain in the United States with her spouse and pets while working as a special education teacher in Florida.

However, this cycle brought unprecedented delays in processing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals applications, causing Candia to lose her employment and live in constant worry about detention in the nation she has considered home since age 6.

“Fear has become my new baseline” as an immigrant in America, Candia explained. “But now, having a new level of vulnerability, it was a very quick increase in the fear.”

Processing delays for the Obama administration program, which provides temporary protection and work permits for individuals brought to America as children, have reached levels not witnessed since 2016’s major technical problems.

Hundreds of thousands of program participants, commonly called “Dreamers,” have experienced months-long waits only to watch their deadlines expire without decisions. This creates a precarious situation where employment authorization vanishes, driver’s licenses often become invalid, and their ability to remain in the country faces jeopardy.

“It’s not just anecdotal; it’s happening at a larger scale than we’ve ever seen before,” stated Greisa Martinez Rosas, executive director of United We Dream, an immigrant youth-led network.

Officials have not released statistics showing how many individuals recently missed renewal deadlines despite submitting applications 120 to 150 days early, as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services suggests.

“Under the leadership of President Trump, USCIS is safeguarding the American people by more thoroughly screening and vetting all aliens, which can lengthen processing times,” agency spokesperson Zach Kahler explained in a statement.

The DACA program provides qualified individuals with two-year renewable permits for living and working in America. While it doesn’t grant legal status, it offers deportation protection.

Between October 2025 and February 2026’s end, median renewal waiting periods reached approximately 70 days, compared to roughly 15 days in fiscal year 2025, according to USCIS data. This represents the longest median processing time since 2016’s 79-day average, with 2020 data excluded due to pandemic disruptions.

The Department of Homeland Security blamed 2016’s delays on technical problems during the transition to fully electronic DACA renewal processing.

By late April 2026, USCIS reported most renewal applications were completed within approximately 122 days, marking a two-week increase from earlier monthly estimates.

Congressional representatives and advocacy organizations report some applicants recently waiting six months or longer—about 183 days or more.

“The delays that people are concerned about used to be sort of a matter of weeks at a time,” U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., said during an interview. “Now it’s from a few months to many, many months.”

Padilla joins dozens of legislators who have written to federal agencies questioning extended wait times and whether individuals missing renewal deadlines face arrest or deportation targeting.

More than five months after submitting her DACA renewal application, Elsa Sanchez continues awaiting a response. When her deadline passed in early April, her healthcare IT company placed her on leave, leaving the single mother of a college freshman without income.

This uncertainty affects everything from travel plans to household spending decisions on items like shampoo and cleaning supplies.

“I’m like, ‘I don’t know, maybe I can cut down on that. Maybe I don’t need this,’” she explained. “Because I’m saving every penny.”

Sanchez experienced similar delays about ten years ago, but current fears intensify amid President Donald Trump’s mass deportation initiatives.

Since DACA’s 2012 launch, the program has endured numerous legal challenges, including two Supreme Court cases. While the government continues approving renewals, a 2025 federal court ruling halted first-time application processing and potentially opens another Supreme Court review.

During 2025’s first eleven months, over 250 DACA recipients faced arrest and 86 experienced deportation, according to then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. She indicated most arrestees had “criminal histories” without specifying crime types or distinguishing between arrests, charges, or convictions. Separate DHS responses to Democratic congressional inquiries reported conflicting figures of 270 arrests and 174 removals in 2025’s first nine months.

DACA eligibility partly depends on lacking felony convictions, significant misdemeanors, or three misdemeanor offenses. Previously, individuals facing status issues received warnings and opportunities to contest decisions before immigration officers initiated detention and deportation proceedings.

USCIS spokesperson Kahler emphasized that DACA recipients don’t receive automatic deportation protection.

“Any illegal alien who is a DACA recipient may be subject to arrest and deportation for a number of reasons —including if they committed a crime,” he stated.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement didn’t respond to questions about targeting DACA beneficiaries after missed renewal deadlines.

Federal lawmakers have recently documented cases of ICE arrests following DACA lapses.

Protection may have weakened further following last week’s Board of Immigration Appeals precedent decision determining DACA status alone cannot prevent deportation.

Experts suggest extended wait times might relate to restarting biometric appointments paused during the pandemic. Some applicants may miss deadlines by not submitting applications within recommended timeframes.

Immigration attorney and DACA recipient Maria Fernanda Madrigal submitted her renewal application approximately six weeks before her deadline, previously sufficient processing time. She also waited for her employer’s DACA workshop to waive the $550-plus renewal fee.

Earlier this month, Madrigal’s DACA expired and the mother of three lost her position.

“My first concern was my cases, to be honest, because I knew I was going to have to hand off everything, and my team is already overworked,” Madrigal said.

Immigration lawyers report USCIS has suspended renewal processing for individuals from dozens of countries the agency labeled “high-risk” in recent policy memorandums following presidential proclamations. The National Immigration Law Center estimates 3,000 to 4,000 people could be affected.

“This process that has no timeline is leading to people from certain countries experiencing a pause. And we don’t know how long that pause will be in place,” explained Ignacia Rodriguez Kmec, National Immigration Law Center attorney.

Candia checks her renewal status daily, most fearing detention in poor ICE facility conditions while also considering what returning to Bolivia after 25-plus years would mean.

“If God forbid that happened, it would break my heart because I’ve been in this country since I was 6,” she said. “My entire life is here.”

The White House is claiming that military hostilities with Iran have concluded due to a ceasefire implemented in April, a position that would exempt the administration from seeking congressional authorization as a Friday deadline approaches.

This stance builds upon testimony given by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth before the Senate on Thursday, where he stated that the ceasefire had effectively halted the conflict. Using this logic, the White House argues it hasn’t triggered the 60-day requirement under a 1973 statute that mandates congressional approval for extended military operations.

Despite the ongoing ceasefire extension, Iran continues controlling the Strait of Hormuz while U.S. naval forces maintain a blockade preventing Iranian oil vessels from reaching international waters.

Republican lawmakers who previously expressed concerns about Trump’s Iranian military engagement had highlighted May 1 as a crucial date for congressional intervention. However, that deadline appears likely to pass without GOP action as legislators continue supporting the administration’s position.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires Congress to either declare war or approve military force within 60 days — with Friday marking that deadline — or within 90 days if the president requests additional time. Congress has made no effort to enforce this provision, having left Washington on Thursday following the Senate’s sixth rejection of Democratic efforts to end the conflict.

The administration has demonstrated no willingness to pursue congressional authorization, maintaining that the legal deadlines are irrelevant since Iranian hostilities effectively ceased when the April ceasefire took effect.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota stated Thursday that he has no plans to schedule votes authorizing Iranian military action or otherwise intervening in the matter.

A senior administration official, speaking anonymously about the government’s stance, declared that regarding the 1973 law, “the hostilities that began on Saturday, Feb. 28 have terminated.” The official noted that American and Iranian forces haven’t engaged in combat since the two-week ceasefire beginning April 7.

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed his wish to lead what he calls a “normal Congress,” but the Republican-controlled chamber he oversees continues to operate in anything but ordinary fashion.

Marathon overnight sessions have become commonplace. Extended periods pass with no legislative activity on the House floor. Bills get drafted hastily in private meetings. Votes get called with little warning. Major legislative efforts collapse spectacularly. Yet occasionally, as occurred this week, the House manages surprising victories when bills actually get approved.

“Sometimes it’s an ugly process, sometimes it’s a long process,” Johnson remarked following House approval of bipartisan legislation funding a significant portion of the Department of Homeland Security, bringing an end to the agency’s longest shutdown on record. “But we got it done.”

The GOP majority, facing challenging odds to maintain their narrow House control in this election cycle, frequently appears to still be finding their footing, despite regaining power in 2022, as they prepare to seek voter approval for another term this November.

The week’s procedural stumbles — including a five-hour delay while Johnson met privately to rescue his legislative agenda, followed by an unexpected vote tally occurring close to 11 p.m. — would traditionally have been viewed as politically and procedurally shocking. Today, such chaos represents just typical Wednesday business.

Two weeks prior, what began as a standard House Rules Committee session transformed into a late-night venue for unveiling a hastily crafted 14-page measure modifying surveillance legislation, specifically the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, before being expedited to the floor for a 2 a.m. vote that ultimately failed.

“House Republicans have shown again that they can’t govern,” stated California Rep. Ted Lieu, who serves in Democratic leadership.

“They routinely pass bills to the Senate that are way too extreme, then it ends up that we have all these floor session days where we’re just doing nothing,” he explained.

Johnson, who assumed leadership following Kevin McCarthy’s removal more than two years ago, currently manages one of the narrowest House majorities in recent memory, providing him virtually no margin for error when attempting to advance legislation through party-line votes without Democratic support.

The speaker must balance not only former President Donald Trump’s legislative priorities but also accommodate the diverse factions comprising his majority, ranging from the conservative House Freedom Caucus to the remaining pragmatic GOP conservatives.

Johnson’s own leadership tenure remains uncertain, given Republicans’ track record of forcing previous speakers, including McCarthy, John Boehner, and Newt Gingrich, into early departures.

Last year, the Louisiana congressman successfully guided passage of his party’s primary legislative accomplishment, a comprehensive package of tax reductions and safety net program cuts that Trump ultimately signed. During that effort, he commented on the challenges of achieving legislative success.

“I do so deeply desire to have just a normal Congress,” the speaker stated in July.

“But it doesn’t happen anymore,” he continued. “Our way is to plow through and get it done.”

Looking toward fall elections, Johnson and fellow Republican legislators have outlined an agenda featuring promises of another GOP-exclusive budget package similar to the tax legislation, which they could advance through both chambers without requiring Democratic support.

Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, indicated Thursday that he anticipates “the centerpiece” of that package “will be supporting our troops” through more than $100 billion in funding for military operations against Iran, plus resources to replenish defense supplies and address other Pentagon requirements.

Despite this week’s House turbulence, Arrington described what they’re terming budget reconciliation 3.0 as the “next order of business.”

However, GOP legislators might determine it’s preferable to avoid the difficult work of crafting legislation, along with the dramatic disruptions typically accompanying such efforts, and instead focus on campaigning to attract voters.

Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s campaign organization, admitted that attempting to pass legislation with such a narrow majority “can be rough. It’s ugly.”

“I’d be fine with letting us go home and campaign,” Hudson acknowledged. “But we’ve got a lot of important work still to do.”

Some of Johnson’s most vocal critics among conservative Republican lawmakers directed their frustration over the disorganized process not toward Johnson’s leadership but toward their GOP colleagues in the Senate, who frequently dismiss House legislative efforts.

“Yeah, sometimes, it gets a little tense,” said Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy. “But we’re still getting stuff done. We’re sending it over to the Senate. So we look forward to them doing their job.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — During his Senate confirmation hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told lawmakers his objective for executing President Donald Trump’s large-scale deportation plan was to keep his agency out of newspaper headlines.

To a certain extent, he’s succeeded. The days of viral social media footage showing former Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino confronting demonstrators have ended. While his predecessor Kristi Noem made her inaugural secretary trip to New York City for Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests, Mullin traveled to North Carolina to assess hurricane recovery operations.

The Republican administration seems to be adjusting its strategy for a signature policy that helped return Trump to office, shifting away from confrontational, highly visible enforcement methods toward more discreet operations. However, officials maintain they haven’t abandoned their ambitious deportation targets despite this tactical change.

“Clearly they’ve stepped back from the, for want of a better word, the Bovinoist tactics of before,” said Mark Krikorian, the president of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for immigration restrictions. “But it’s not clear this means they’re actually stepping back from immigration.”

Last year, the Trump administration initiated multiple immigration enforcement campaigns primarily in cities controlled by Democrats, resulting in increased arrests through large-scale operations. These crackdowns generated confrontations between demonstrators and enforcement personnel and resulted in the fatal shootings of two American citizens in Minneapolis.

Following these incidents, the president’s strict anti-immigration policies have become less popular among voters, and no new major city-focused operations have been announced, prompting questions about the administration’s approach.

“We’re still enforcing immigration laws. We’re still deporting illegals that shouldn’t be here. We’re still going after the worst of the worst — but we’re doing it in a more quiet way,” Mullin said in an interview April 16 with CNBC.

ICE apprehensions have declined in recent months, with immigration detention numbers falling from approximately 72,000 in January to 58,000 this week, according to Associated Press data.

However, demonstrating ongoing commitment, ICE budget documents indicate plans to remove 1 million individuals during this fiscal year and next, compared to approximately 442,000 people last year. The agency also has substantial funding for its operations, with Congress allocating more than $170 billion to the Department of Homeland Security for Trump’s immigration initiatives last year.

The administration targets detention capacity for roughly 100,000 people this fiscal year, more than doubling last year’s average daily ICE detention population. Officials have already increased detention space by acquiring 11 warehouses nationwide.

“They are working really on building a juggernaut of a system,” said Doris Meissner, who headed the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, a predecessor to ICE, during President Bill Clinton’s Democratic administration and is now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said there had been no change to Trump’s strategy.

“President Trump’s highest priority has always been the deportation of illegal alien criminals who endanger American communities,” Jackson said.

ICE did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Immigration advocates anticipate the Trump administration will focus more intensively on removing protections for migrants with temporary legal authorization to stay in the U.S. while their cases undergo review.

Demonstrating this approach, green card approvals by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services fell by half during a year under the Trump administration, according to Cato Institute analysis, which supports U.S. immigration. Humanitarian visas for refugees and asylum seekers experienced the largest decreases.

USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler attributed the decline to enhanced applicant screening by the administration.

The Trump administration has also sought to eliminate Temporary Protected Status from hundreds of thousands of individuals, with a crucial case about potential executive overreach being considered by the Supreme Court this week.

Advocates view this as messaging designed to intimidate immigrant communities while making more people subject to deportation. This approach also allows the department to function without the public attention generated by workplace raids or residential arrests.

Over the past year, ICE has concentrated on establishing partnerships with jurisdictions nationwide, enabling local and state police to perform expanded immigration enforcement duties, from verifying immigration status of jail inmates to conducting immigration checks during regular traffic stops.

These partnerships, called 287g agreements, have expanded from 135 in 20 states before Trump’s presidency to over 1,400 in 41 states and territories currently.

Several states, particularly Florida and Texas, have mandated various forms of local law enforcement cooperation with ICE.

Meissner from MPI said Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, will likely emphasize further discussions about municipal and state cooperation with ICE.

“At the end of the day, some of this may very well succeed in increasing the numbers,” Meissner said.

Conservative supporters of increased deportations argue the only effective way to reduce illegal immigration is making employment so difficult for migrants that they voluntarily depart.

The Trump administration has implemented measures to complicate life for undocumented individuals, including restricting public housing eligibility by immigration status, sharing Medicaid data with ICE, and requiring undocumented individuals to register with federal authorities.

Krikorian from the Center for Immigration Studies suggested the Social Security Administration could notify employers when employee names don’t match Social Security numbers. Authorities could conduct regular audits of I-9 employment eligibility forms that companies must complete for new employees. Banks could be required to collect citizenship information from customers.

Regardless of future strategy, the administration faces significant pressure to maintain its objectives.

“The numbers are too low,” said Mike Howell, part of the Mass Deportation Coalition, which launched a playbook for how the administration can actually get to a million deportations a year by using tactics such as worksite enforcement.

“The deportation numbers are just too low,” Howell said, “and they need to be much higher, and they can be much higher.”

Pro-choice advocates in Indiana are taking their fight against the state’s abortion restrictions directly to the highest court using an unconventional legal approach. The challengers are invoking Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, claiming the abortion ban interferes with their faith-based convictions that support access to the procedure.

This unique legal strategy represents a creative approach that could influence similar litigation across the country. The Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to fast-track the case, allowing the challengers to bypass lower court proceedings. Oral arguments are scheduled to take place in September.

Federal agencies have maintained a busy schedule this week, prompting a new quiz to test how closely Americans have been following current events.

The weekly challenge asks readers to fill in the blank regarding which target the Trump administration focused on during recent days. According to the quiz creators, those who have been keeping up with the news deserve recognition for their attention to detail.

This week’s government activities have encompassed a wide range of developments, from building renovations to legal proceedings and the creation of special commemorative products. The quiz format encourages civic engagement by rewarding those who stay informed about federal operations and policy decisions.

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans are allowing a critical Friday deadline to expire without taking action on President Trump’s military involvement in Iran, despite previous assurances they would step in by the May 1 cutoff date.

The War Powers Resolution from 1973 requires lawmakers to either declare war or approve military force within 60 days of engagement — with Friday marking that deadline — or within 90 days if the president requests additional time. However, Congress has made no effort to enforce this mandate, departing for a weeklong break Thursday following the Senate’s sixth rejection of a Democratic proposal to end the military action.

The Trump White House has demonstrated no interest in seeking legislative approval whatsoever. Administration officials contend the legal deadlines don’t apply since military operations in Iran essentially concluded when a ceasefire took effect in early April.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota stated Thursday he has no plans for a vote authorizing Iranian military action or other intervention.

“I’m listening carefully to what the members of our conference are saying, and at this point I don’t see that,” Thune said.

This hesitation to challenge Trump on military matters comes during a politically challenging period for Republicans, as public dissatisfaction grows regarding both the conflict and rising gasoline costs. Nevertheless, most GOP legislators express support for Trump’s wartime decisions or indicate willingness to allow him additional time given the delicate ceasefire situation.

North Dakota Republican Senator Kevin Cramer indicated he would support war authorization if Trump requested it. However, he questioned whether the War Powers Resolution, enacted during the Vietnam era to restore congressional authority, is even constitutionally valid.

“Our founders created a really strong executive, like it or not like it,” Cramer said.

However, some Republican senators have expressed desire for eventual congressional involvement. Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski announced during Thursday floor remarks that she plans to introduce limited military force authorization when the Senate reconvenes after recess if the administration hasn’t presented what she termed a “credible plan.”

“I do not believe we should engage in open-ended military action without clear accountability,” Murkowski said. “Congress has a role.”

Several GOP senators have maintained for weeks that Congress should exercise its war authority at some point. Maine’s Susan Collins, one such senator, joined Democrats for the first time Thursday in voting to end the military action. Her statement emphasized wanting a clear strategy for conflict resolution.

“The president’s authority as commander-in-chief is not without limits,” Collins said, noting the 60-day deadline is “not a suggestion, it is a requirement.”

Beyond Collins and Murkowski, Republican Senators John Curtis of Utah, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Josh Hawley of Missouri have recently expressed interest in eventual voting.

Curtis stated he wouldn’t support continued war funding until Congress authorizes it.

“It is time for decision-making from both the administration and from Congress — and that can happen in league with one another, not in conflict,” Curtis said.

Thune recommended increased White House communication with legislators through briefings and hearings to maintain Capitol Hill support.

“Obviously, getting readouts from our military leadership on a somewhat regular basis I think will be helpful in terms of shaping the views of our members about how comfortable they are with everything that’s happening there, and the direction headed forward,” Thune said.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution mandates presidents have 60 calendar days after congressional notification of U.S. military engagement to either conclude operations or obtain legislative approval. The White House may request a 30-day extension for safe troop withdrawal, requiring congressional notification.

While Friday marks the 60-day expiration, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified Thursday, “We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means, the 60-day clock pauses or stops.”

A senior administration official, speaking anonymously about the administration’s stance, claimed that for war powers purposes, “the hostilities that began on Saturday, Feb. 28 have terminated.” The official noted no military exchanges between U.S. and Iranian forces since the two-week ceasefire beginning April 7.

The administration maintains this position despite Iran’s continued control of the Strait of Hormuz and ongoing U.S. Navy blockade preventing Iranian oil tankers from reaching open waters.

Democrats dismissed suggestions that May 1 isn’t the actual deadline. “I do not believe the statute would support that,” Virginia Senator Tim Kaine told Hegseth during hearings.

California Senator Adam Schiff argued that military operations continue with warships and other assets despite halted bombing during the ceasefire.

“Ceasing to use some forces while using others does not somehow stop the clock,” Schiff said.

The development didn’t surprise at least one House Democrat with military oversight responsibilities.

Representative Adam Smith, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told The Associated Press: “Is the expectation that the Trump administration is going to follow the law? I do not have that expectation.”

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida Democrats who anticipated making electoral gains this cycle now face the prospect of surrendering as many as four congressional seats following new district boundaries approved by the state’s Republican-dominated legislature.

The redistricting plan could flip up to four House seats from Democratic to Republican control, despite Democrats’ hopes of capitalizing on shifting political winds in the state.

Governor Ron DeSantis defended the redistricting effort, stating it accurately represents Florida’s demographic changes and political preferences. Democratic leaders denounced the move as a calculated power play supported by former President Trump, who has encouraged similar redistricting efforts nationwide.

The new boundaries employ classic gerrymandering strategies known as “packing and cracking.” These techniques either concentrate similar voters into fewer districts to limit their broader influence, or spread them across multiple districts to weaken their electoral impact in any single race.

Analysis from political experts across party lines shows 24 districts where Trump secured double-digit victories in 2020 under the revised map. Republican victories in all these districts would represent a four-seat pickup for the party.

Legal challenges to the new map appear inevitable, but here’s how the boundary changes impact current Democratic strongholds across Florida.

The Tampa Bay region, encompassing Pinellas and Hillsborough counties, previously served as a crucial swing area in national elections. Voters around Tampa and St. Petersburg historically functioned as political barometers for presidential races.

The existing configuration divides the metro area between Republican Anna Paulina Luna’s conservative-leaning district and Democrat Kathy Castor’s liberal-leaning seat. The revised map creates three districts with Republican advantages, while adding more conservative rural territory to Castor’s constituency.

Castor condemned the new boundaries as “blatantly illegal” due to Florida’s constitutional prohibition against partisan gerrymandering. However, she pledged: “No matter how new districts are drawn, I will keep fighting for Tampa Bay families.”

Luna, a priority Democratic target this November, gained additional Republican-friendly precincts, though Washington Democrats maintain the seat remains winnable given Trump’s declining approval ratings.

Currently, Democrats Darren Soto and Maxwell Frost hold adjacent Orlando-area districts, with Frost representing the urban core while Soto covers Kissimmee and extends across much of Osceola County.

The new map consolidates Orlando’s metropolitan center into one overwhelmingly Democratic district. Simultaneously, other Orlando neighborhoods join a more expansive, Republican-leaning district stretching across greater distances.

Frost criticized the design for connecting urban residents with voters living two hours away. “That’s how hard DeSantis map-makers had to work to dilute the impact of voters in Orange County and make this district red,” he posted on social media.

Soto, who is Puerto Rican and currently represents a significant Puerto Rican population, directed sharp criticism at the governor.

“DeSantis declared war against Florida’s 1.3M Puerto Ricans,” he wrote online. “We are American citizens, our people served and died for this country, and we vote.”

The redistricting plan eliminates a predominantly Black South Florida district previously held by Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick before her recent resignation amid a House ethics investigation regarding campaign fund usage. This district was originally created to satisfy Voting Rights Act requirements that the Supreme Court significantly weakened this week.

DeSantis characterized the district as an extreme example of racial gerrymandering, noting its inland core with two extensions reaching toward coastal Democratic communities.

Under the new plan, this district essentially disappears, with its territory distributed among several other districts.

Representatives Lois Frankel and Jared Moskowitz currently hold neighboring districts spanning portions of Palm Beach and Broward counties, both with slight Democratic advantages.

The revised map establishes a more solidly Democratic district centered on West Palm Beach, combining some of Frankel’s constituents with those previously represented by Cherfilus-McCormick. Moskowitz faces greater challenges, as his current territory gets divided among three districts.

Parkland, Moskowitz’s hometown, will join a more Republican district extending across the state to Naples. Already a top Republican target before redistricting, Moskowitz has not announced which district he will choose for his reelection campaign.

Representatives Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, former Democratic National Committee chair, and Frederica Wilson currently serve adjacent districts south of the Frankel-Moskowitz area.

Wasserman-Schultz represents north Broward, including her home in Weston, plus Hollywood, Pembroke Pines, and part of Miramar. Wilson, residing in Miami Gardens, holds the second-most Democratic district on the current map, covering south Broward and sections of Miami-Dade.

The new configuration creates just one concentrated Democratic district in Miami-Dade, positioning Wilson to retain her seat there. A heavily Democratic Broward district sits between that Miami-Dade constituency and Frankel’s Palm Beach County base. Wasserman-Schultz doesn’t live in that Broward section, forcing her to choose between running there or competing in one of the more Republican districts Moskowitz is also considering.

Wasserman-Schultz labeled the redistricting “a nakedly partisan scheme” that “breaks state law.”

In potentially positive news for national Democrats, the South Florida changes didn’t significantly strengthen Republican Representatives María Elvira Salazar of Coral Gables or Carlos Giménez, another Miami-Dade legislator. Democrats plan to continue targeting both seats in this year’s midterm elections.

Alaska’s Republican Governor Mike Dunleavy rejected comprehensive election reform legislation on Thursday, expressing concerns about implementation challenges and potential legal issues.

The comprehensive reform package represented over ten years of development and aimed to modernize Alaska’s voting system by enabling voters to monitor their ballots throughout the counting process.

Additional provisions in the legislation included expanding valid forms of voter identification, updating voter registration maintenance procedures, adjusting mail-in ballot deadlines, and establishing a liaison role for rural communities. Alaska covers more territory than any other state while having the nation’s lowest population density.

The state will conduct elections this year for governor, lieutenant governor, congressional representation, and state legislative positions.

Both chambers of Alaska’s legislature had approved the measure with support from Republicans and Democrats alike.

While acknowledging merit in certain aspects of the proposal, Dunleavy stated in his official response that the legislation presented unspecified legal complications. He warned the complete package would create substantial administrative challenges and could potentially compromise Alaska’s electoral integrity.

“The Division of Elections warns such changes would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement securely and reliably in advance of the 2026 elections,” Dunleavy stated in correspondence to the Senate president.

The Senate Rules Committee had sponsored the legislation. Committee chair Bill Wielechowski, a Democrat, has not yet provided a response regarding the veto.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mike Cronk characterized the proposal as solid foundational legislation that would improve electoral processes for Alaska residents.

The Constitution grants individual states authority over conducting federal elections within their borders.

Development of Alaska’s reform bill began before recent efforts by various states responding to claims from former President Donald Trump and other prominent Republicans alleging insufficient measures against voter fraud, despite state reviews and academic research consistently showing such fraud occurs infrequently.

WASHINGTON — The White House is claiming that military operations against Iran have concluded thanks to a ceasefire implemented in early April, a position that would let the administration bypass congressional authorization requirements.

This stance builds upon arguments presented by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during Senate testimony Thursday, where he stated the ceasefire essentially put the conflict on hold. Using this logic, the administration contends it hasn’t reached the threshold established by the 1973 War Powers Resolution requiring formal congressional consent for military operations lasting more than 60 days.

An unnamed senior administration official explained the government’s position, stating that “the hostilities that began on Saturday, Feb. 28 have terminated.” The official noted that American forces and Iranian military units haven’t engaged in combat since the two-week truce started on April 7.

Despite the extended ceasefire, Iran continues controlling the Strait of Hormuz while U.S. naval forces maintain a blockade preventing Iranian oil vessels from reaching international waters.

The War Powers Resolution, designed to limit presidential military authority, required President Donald Trump to obtain congressional approval or end combat operations by Friday. The legislation also permits administrations to extend this timeframe by an additional 30 days.

Democratic lawmakers have demanded formal authorization for the Iranian conflict, with the 60-day milestone expected to become a crucial decision point for Republican legislators who supported initial action against Tehran while demanding congressional involvement for extended operations.

“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” stated Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who supported Thursday’s measure to halt Iranian military action without congressional approval. She emphasized that “further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close.”

Richard Goldberg, former National Security Council director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction during Trump’s initial presidency, recommended transitioning to a fresh operation potentially named “Epic Passage,” serving as a follow-up to Operation Epic Fury.

This new mission would “inherently be a mission of self-defense focused on reopening the strait while reserving the right to offensive action in support of restoring freedom of navigation,” according to Goldberg, currently a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based hawkish policy institute.

“That to me solves it all,” Goldberg added.

During Senate Armed Services Committee hearings Thursday, Hegseth testified it was the administration’s “understanding” that the 60-day timeline was suspended during the bilateral ceasefire period.

Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel at the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program and war powers specialist, described this interpretation as a “sizeable extension of previous legal gamesmanship” concerning the 1973 legislation.

“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she explained.

Previous administrations have contended their military actions were either insufficient in intensity or too sporadic to fall under War Powers Resolution requirements. However, Trump’s Iranian conflict wouldn’t qualify for such exemptions, Ebright noted, urging lawmakers to challenge the administration’s reasoning.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has brought back to work more than a dozen employees who were suspended last August following their participation in a public letter that criticized agency leadership and policies.

The return to work was verified Thursday by a U.S. lawmaker and the nonprofit organization that published the critical letter on its website.

According to Stand Up for Science, the nonprofit group involved, “all signers who are placed on administrative leave have been given the return to work order.”

The suspensions last year raised questions about the Trump administration’s tolerance for internal criticism, particularly as the president placed loyalists in key positions across federal agencies following his return to office in early 2025.

Senator Andy Kim, a Democrat who pushed for the workers’ reinstatement, confirmed he had discussed the matter with the new Department of Homeland Security secretary.

NBC News first broke the story, referencing email communications between DHS and the senator. Media reports also quoted some of the returning employees, including one who described feeling “vindicated.”

The controversial letter, sent to Congress last year by current and former disaster response agency staff, expressed alarm that inexperienced leadership appointments under the Trump administration could result in emergency response failures comparable to Hurricane Katrina.

The correspondence specifically targeted policies and decisions made under former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s leadership.

Since Trump’s return to the presidency, FEMA has experienced substantial workforce reductions. Trump dismissed Noem in early March and selected Markwayne Mullin to lead the Department of Homeland Security.

A FEMA representative stated the agency is “addressing outstanding personnel actions to ensure workforce stability.”

“As we approach the 2026 hurricane season and the FIFA World Cup, FEMA is taking targeted steps to stabilize our workforce and strengthen readiness,” the spokesperson explained to news organizations.

A gunfire incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner has sparked fresh conversations about political violence, protection of the president, and how security vulnerabilities are viewed by both allies and opponents of America. The event forced the emergency removal of President Donald Trump, the first lady, Vice President JD Vance, Cabinet officials, and other high-ranking government members, and is now being analyzed both as a narrowly avoided security catastrophe and as a significant moment at one of Washington’s most prominent gatherings of political and media leadership.

Dr. Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, shared his perspective with The Media Line, stating: “America can learn something from Israel’s secret service, otherwise known as the Shabak—Shin Bet. This is a reminder to the [US] Secret Service that they can never be too careful.” Diker characterized the event as “the third assassination attempt that the president has faced, unprecedented in presidential history in the United States.”

While acknowledging the ongoing investigation, Diker emphasized caution in drawing conclusions. “I don’t want to speculate because all the information is not yet available,” he explained. “The investigation is ongoing. But the timing is rather notable of this particular attempt. And it was a very serious event.” He noted that the individual involved was “heavily armed” and suggested the situation warrants a comprehensive examination of security measures surrounding American political figures.

Diker highlighted how the attack’s occurrence during a prominent media gathering in a democratic society carries particular significance. He observed that open societies face unique risks because diverse political expression can coexist with extreme and violent language. “Democratic societies, of course, are free and transparent,” he noted. “And that type of culture, inviting freedom of expression, also has a risky side to it.”

Drawing attention to America’s constitutional protections, Diker explained: “Certainly, in the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution is the guarantee of free speech. Sometimes when you have an era in which free speech is brought to the levels of incitement to murder, … it’s protected speech in the United States … unless it’s known to lead directly to an act of terror, then it’s illegal.”

According to Diker, the challenge extends beyond securing individual events to understanding how political atmosphere relates to physical threats. “Here in the United States, particularly, you always run the risk that violent speech can lead to violent acts,” he said. “All of this is under investigation. But just the larger point here is that the risk that the United States takes as being the most outstanding example of guaranteed freedom of expression is that it can end up in very unfortunate situations like this.”

The shooting has already triggered internal security assessments and conversations regarding protective measures for major public gatherings involving senior leadership. Officials are also evaluating the response itself, including how quickly the venue was secured and evacuation procedures were executed, as part of a comprehensive review of readiness and coordination.

Diker anticipated that U.S. agencies might seek consultation with Israeli counterparts following this incident. “There are lessons learned from these types of events that would really ratchet up the security protocols for public figures,” he said. “I definitely think that there will be changes in protocols. And I would be very unsurprised if the government would be consulting Israel on exactly how to strengthen those protocols.”

He positioned this potential collaboration within existing security cooperation between the nations. “The United States police departments have turned to Israel to learn advanced policing techniques. And here, I would be very unsurprised if this would be happening on the level of the FBI and Israel’s national security services.”

Mike Evans, founder of the Friends of Zion Heritage Center, expressed confidence in the protective response surrounding the president. “I wasn’t concerned about the president,” Evans told The Media Line. “I know the Secret Service would handle it all. Obviously, it was very uncomfortable to see that again after several terrorist attacks, but I know the president, and I know he’s very strong.”

Evans noted that the incident had particular impact among pro-Israel and evangelical communities, where many view President Trump as a strong Israel supporter. “Israel, the Israeli people are tremendous supporters of Donald Trump,” he said. “They know he’s the greatest president in Israel’s history, and I think it’ll work in reverse. When Donald Trump is faced with a crisis, he gets more focused, and I think the Iranians will find that he’s not weak at all, and by the way, it’ll make the American people unite more behind him.”

Following his return to the White House, President Trump addressed the incident and announced the dinner would be rescheduled. He stressed that officials remained safe and conveyed a message of normalcy despite the disruption.

Diker viewed this decision as carrying strategic importance. “The president actually mirrored, it appears, the Israeli approach to these types of violent assaults,” he said. “The Israelis, if we remember, always clear the scene of any terror attack very quickly and return to normal life very quickly. And this is an expression of strength, resilience, and power.”

“The message that President Donald Trump conveyed in having a press conference immediately after, within 30 minutes of the event, is to say, ‘I’m going to speak directly to American people’,” Diker explained. “I am fine. We are fine. We’re continuing business as usual.”

Evans echoed this sentiment, also referencing Israel’s approach. “This is the strength of Israel,” he said. “They don’t give in to the fear. They force themselves to go on with their lives.” He described the announcement that officials were safe and the event would be rescheduled as “very important” because “the objective of the terror is to instill terror and fear and break the will of the individual and of the nation.”

Both experts viewed the attack as involving more than just physical security concerns, but also matters of perception. Diker noted that foreign adversaries monitor such incidents carefully, particularly during periods of heightened tension involving the United States, Israel, and Iran. “The cognitive effect of an assassination attempt has to be taken into account as a component in the ongoing war,” he said.

“When something like this happens, especially repeatedly, it conveys a message on the face of it that America is exposed,” Diker explained. “These types of attacks always deepen this divide between the perception of power and the perception of weakness.” However, he added that the outcome also enabled the United States to demonstrate control. “On the other hand, no one was hurt. The attempted killer was apprehended.”

Evans framed the incident within what he characterized as a broader ideological battle over leadership and public confidence. “There’s many different types of attempts at destroying leadership,” he said. “You have assassination attempts … but then there’s other attempts at destruction. There are attempts to destroy the reputation of a leader.”

He also connected instances of political violence to the information landscape. “He who defines the terms controls the debate,” Evans said. He cautioned that public opinion is being influenced by misinformation and ideological messaging. “Probably 80% of the information in social media is false information, and it’s an AI war,” he said.

Evans offered straightforward advice to supporters who felt unsettled. “I would say don’t worry about it,” he said. “This is what happens in the lives of great men.” He drew comparisons between the risks President Trump faces and historical attacks on American leaders, suggesting that leadership inherently involves exposure to personal risk. “The greater the president, the greater the attempt by individual [assassins],” he said. “So, we have incredible security. Everything will be fine. But this is the price they have to pay for leadership.”

The shooting has generated multiple interpretations. Security professionals see it as raising questions about access control, screening procedures, and protection of senior officials at events combining political leadership, media attention, and large public gatherings. Pro-Israel voices have used it as an opportunity to discuss deterrence, resilience, and whether America should embrace more of the defensive mindset developed by Israel under constant threat.

Diker emphasized that the most crucial response is preventing the incident from appearing as weakness. “There has to be absolutely no tolerance,” he said. He maintained that the U.S. must continue demonstrating strength against its enemies “to deter any future attacks.”

For Evans, the solution involves maintaining continuity and moral conviction. “It doesn’t make any difference if you’re Donald Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu,” he said. “If you’re going to be a leader and make the tough decisions, don’t expect to have a whole lot of friends. It’s a very lonely job at the top because you’re making decisions based upon moral clarity.”

The national passenger railroad is exploring plans to install secure storage containers on trains across its network, a move that would significantly expand where firearms can be transported by rail passengers, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

This policy consideration has been under review since the beginning of the year, following pressure from Trump administration representatives to reduce current weapon transport limitations, two individuals with knowledge of the plan told The Associated Press. These sources requested anonymity as they lack authorization to discuss the matter publicly.

The railway company has not dropped the idea even after Saturday’s incident involving a suspect who allegedly used Amtrak service to travel from California to the nation’s capital while carrying weapons with the intention of harming President Donald Trump and other government officials during Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Cole Tomas Allen was taken into custody after law enforcement says he attempted to breach security barriers near the hotel venue hosting the event, leading to gunfire being exchanged with Secret Service personnel. A Secret Service agent wearing protective armor was struck in the vest but survived the encounter.

Law enforcement reports Allen carried a shotgun and semi-automatic handgun during his rail journey from Torrance, California to Washington. Amtrak has not disclosed whether he complied with current regulations, which require passengers to declare firearms and permit the company to secure them with checked luggage. Allen’s legal representative states he lacks a criminal history and maintains presumption of innocence.

The railway’s potential rule modification, which could enter testing phases shortly, involves installing secure containers throughout its fleet to permit passengers nationwide to transport weapons, rather than limiting such transport to trains equipped with locked baggage compartments, according to AP sources.

This modification would affect over 1,500 daily train services – including routes serving approximately 750,000 daily passengers along Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor – compared to current restrictions limiting firearms to several dozen primarily long-distance services with secured baggage areas.

John Feinblatt, who leads Everytown for Gun Safety, expressed concerns about reduced safety measures.

“Just days after a man took an Amtrak train to Washington with a shotgun and pistol and tried to assassinate the president and other federal officials, the Trump Administration is trying to open the floodgates for firearms on every Amtrak route, while also moving to hollow out the agency responsible for enforcing gun laws and preventing gun trafficking,” he said. “This will only make Americans less safe and Congress must step in before the next tragedy.”

Representatives from Amtrak and the Transportation Department have not provided immediate responses regarding the firearms policy discussions.

Present regulations require passengers to declare firearm possession and store them unloaded in rigid containers. Weapons must comply with specific size and weight standards and are restricted to checked baggage, mirroring airline firearm transport procedures.

The potential modification would maintain weapon security requirements aboard trains, with only conductors holding access keys, according to the two AP sources. The strategy involves equipping every train with secure storage containers.

Questions remain about how Amtrak would verify legal firearm possession and whether destination jurisdictions would permit such transport. Certain locations, including New York City, impose carrying restrictions and may require permits, while other areas maintain more permissive regulations.

Despite existing Amtrak firearm policies, some passengers may already carry weapons aboard trains. Unlike airports with passenger and luggage screening, train travelers face no security checks, and Amtrak does not conduct criminal background verification through passenger name searches. This applies to busy terminals like Washington’s Union Station and small unstaffed stations nationwide where trains collect passengers during overnight hours.

At remote unstaffed locations, passengers frequently board and trains depart before conductors make contact or scan tickets, creating several minutes before weapons could be secured under the proposed system.

Security researcher Sheldon Jacobson, whose work influenced TSA PreCheck development, suggests railways should enhance passenger screening by gathering more ticket purchase information and conducting background verification. However, he notes enforcement challenges when no screening mechanism exists.

“The initial condition is that there’s almost 400 million guns in this country,” he said. “Then work from there as opposed to trying to create a utopian environment where there’s not guns and we’re going to keep it that way.”

Rail transportation presents lower risks than air travel, making extensive passenger screening systems at every station economically unfeasible compared to TSA airport procedures, Jacobson explained. He acknowledged this assessment could shift following any major passenger train incident.

“You have to weigh the risks and rewards. And you have to say, where are we going to put our money to get the greatest risk reduction for the greatest benefit with the least inconvenience to people?” he said.

Labor organizations have advocated for enhanced passenger rail worker protections for nearly ten years, following incidents such as the 2017 conductor shooting by an angry passenger at Naperville, Illinois station.

Two Congressional proposals would provide rail employees protections similar to airline crew members by establishing federal crimes for interfering with or assaulting rail workers during duty performance. Unions have achieved some success with state-level legislation.

Following September 11th attacks, Amtrak and numerous ground transportation companies prohibited weapons on trains and buses, though none implemented comprehensive passenger firearm detection or screening systems. In 2010, Congressional legislation mandated that Amtrak and other companies permit firearm transport when properly checked.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has taken steps to resolve workforce problems that created worry and confusion among its employees, bringing back staff who were suspended for publicly criticizing agency decisions and extending work agreements for others facing contract expiration.

Fourteen FEMA workers who put their names on a public criticism letter last August warning about the country’s disaster readiness have returned to their jobs after spending eight months on paid suspension, sources within FEMA confirmed.

These employees were part of more than 190 current and former FEMA staff members who signed the document, but they were the only active workers who publicly identified themselves. The letter, dubbed the “Katrina Declaration,” criticized several policy choices made during President Donald Trump’s administration that the writers believed could lead to a disaster similar to Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath.

“I feel pretty vindicated, and like we did the right thing,” said Abby McIlraith, a FEMA emergency management specialist who was among those brought back to work. The workers received notification emails Wednesday telling them an investigation had concluded and directing them to report back to duty Thursday, she explained. NBC News first broke the story of their return.

FEMA management also informed certain staff members this week about plans to extend employment contracts for some temporary workers, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press, following months of uncertainty about these positions’ future.

These moves signal that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is shifting away from the stricter policies implemented by his predecessor, Kristi Noem, who was dismissed from her DHS leadership role.

Mullin quickly overturned Noem’s requirement that her office approve any DHS spending exceeding $100,000 and has authorized the release of more than $1 billion in delayed FEMA grants and reimbursements to states, tribes and territories since taking office last month.

A FEMA representative told The Associated Press that while the agency doesn’t discuss individual personnel matters, it is implementing “targeted steps to stabilize our workforce and strengthen readiness” in preparation for the 2026 Atlantic hurricane season and the FIFA World Cup, both starting in June.

“Under new leadership, FEMA is addressing outstanding personnel actions to ensure workforce stability and a strong, deployable surge force for upcoming national events and potential disasters,” the representative stated.

The $100,000 spending approval requirement was among several policies criticized in the protest letter, which was made public on August 25 of last year. Additional concerns included DHS’s decision to transfer some FEMA workers to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the failure to name a qualified FEMA administrator as required by law, and reductions to mitigation programs, preparedness training and FEMA staffing.

The letter also demanded that FEMA be removed from DHS oversight and returned to Cabinet-level status.

Just one day after the letter became public, the 14 staff members were placed on indefinite paid suspension. They returned to work briefly in early December only to be suspended again after a single day. A DHS representative at that time blamed “bureaucrats acting outside of their authority” for the temporary reinstatement.

McIlraith, 24, said that experience made her somewhat cautious about whether their return would be permanent this time. Still, she was back at her FEMA office in Maryland on Thursday, waiting to regain access to her work equipment. She described her time away as “a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

When questioned by Democratic Sen. Andy Kim of New Jersey about the suspended workers’ situation during his Senate confirmation hearing last month, Mullin stated that whistleblower retaliation is illegal and promised to operate “within the law.”

The potential contract extensions announced this week will affect some members of FEMA’s Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees, or CORE, which comprises roughly half of the agency’s workforce. More than 10,000 CORE employees work under limited-term assignments lasting two to four years, a structure that allows the agency to expand and contract its capabilities as circumstances require.

FEMA suddenly stopped renewing some CORE employee contracts at the beginning of 2026 as they came due, while extending others for only 90 days. A current lawsuit challenges the dismissal of hundreds of CORE staff between that time and late January, when FEMA halted the non-renewals.

A message sent to some employees this week stated that COREs whose contracts expire between January and May 2026 and were previously given 90-day extensions “may be reappointed for up to one year,” along with those whose agreements end after May.

The message also indicated that “eligible” FEMA reservists will receive two-year renewals. The agency’s 7,000 reservists in the emergency response workforce have contracts ending May 2.

“Our readiness directly impacts our ability to help Americans in need,” the message stated, “and every employee plays a critical role in meeting these challenges.”

While FEMA hasn’t confirmed whether it will rehire CORE workers whose contracts weren’t renewed, a FEMA employee with knowledge of the situation told The Associated Press that at least one CORE has been recalled. The employee asked for anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak with media.

McIlraith said her concerns about FEMA’s future remain as the agency continues functioning without a permanent administrator and recovers from the record-length DHS shutdown that concluded Thursday.

Trump signed legislation Thursday that funds all DHS operations except immigration enforcement. The bill will restore FEMA’s declining disaster fund with more than $26 billion.

The president has frequently criticized FEMA and has even suggested eliminating it entirely. Next week, the Trump-appointed FEMA Review Council will deliver its highly anticipated and overdue recommendation report. It is expected to suggest major changes to the agency.

WASHINGTON — In a unanimous decision Thursday, the U.S. Senate enacted new regulations prohibiting its members and staff from participating in prediction market gambling, citing concerns about potential misuse of privileged information.

The bipartisan rule change took effect immediately after passing by voice vote, addressing growing worries about lawmakers who have access to confidential details potentially wagering on future events. The action follows recent criminal charges filed against a U.S. special forces member accused of leveraging classified intelligence to place bets on Venezuela’s former president Nicolas Maduro’s January capture, while legislators express mounting unease about public gambling on potential conflict with Iran.

Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio, who authored the original proposal, stated: “United States senators have no business engaging in speculative activities like prediction markets while collecting a taxpayer-funded paycheck, period.” Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California successfully added an amendment extending the prohibition to congressional staff members.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer praised the decision as obvious common sense and urged both the House of Representatives and Trump administration to implement similar restrictions. “We must never allow Congress to turn into a casino where members representing the public can gamble on wars or economic crises or elections,” Schumer declared. “That would destroy the very principle of representative government.”

Republican Senator Todd Young of Indiana and Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan have proposed broader legislation that would prohibit all federal officials and government workers from using insider knowledge for prediction market gambling. Young called Thursday’s action “a good first step” while pushing for consideration of their comprehensive bill.

Major prediction market platforms like Polymarket and competitor Kalshi face increased examination as their operations expand. Polymarket has drawn particular criticism for facilitating offshore transactions that fall outside U.S. regulatory oversight.

The Associated Press revealed earlier this month that newly created Polymarket accounts placed remarkably precise, strategically timed wagers on potential U.S.-Iran ceasefire agreements for April 7, generating hundreds of thousands in profits. Following the AP’s investigation, the White House issued warnings to staff against using confidential information for prediction market trading.

The current administration has supported the expanding prediction market sector in legal battles against states attempting to prohibit these platforms. Donald Trump Jr. serves as an advisor to both Polymarket and Kalshi, while his father’s Truth Social platform is developing Truth Predict, a cryptocurrency-based prediction market.

President Trump recently commented on the trend, saying: “The whole world, unfortunately, has become somewhat of a casino, and you look at what’s going on all over the world and Europe and every place, they’re doing these betting things.”

President Donald Trump authorized a significant new cross-border oil pipeline on Thursday that would transport Canadian crude oil into the United States for processing and export.

The Bridger Pipeline Expansion, measuring three feet in diameter, is designed to transport as much as 550,000 barrels of oil daily from the Montana-Canada border through eastern Montana and Wyoming, where it would connect to existing pipeline infrastructure.

Before construction can begin, the project must secure additional environmental permits from state and federal agencies. Company representatives anticipate breaking ground next year, though environmental advocates are working to block the development due to concerns about potential ruptures and oil spills.

When operating at full capacity, the 650-mile pipeline would transport roughly two-thirds the volume of the well-known Keystone XL pipeline, which President Joe Biden terminated on his first day in office in 2021 due to climate change considerations.

“Slightly different from the last administration. They wouldn’t sign a pipeline deal. And we have pipelines going up,” Trump remarked following his approval of the cross-border permit for the Bridger Pipeline Expansion.

During his initial presidency, Trump had approved the Keystone XL project in 2020 despite opposition from Native American tribes concerned about spill risks and environmental organizations worried about fossil fuel impacts on climate change.

Biden’s decision to revoke the Keystone XL permit disappointed Canadian leaders, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, particularly after Alberta had invested over $1 billion in the venture.

Dubbed “Keystone Light” by some, the Bridger Pipeline Expansion would not traverse any Native American tribal lands. According to Bridger Pipeline LLC, more than 70% of the route would utilize existing pipeline corridors, with 80% crossing private property.

The Casper, Wyoming-headquartered company manages over 3,700 miles of oil gathering and transmission pipelines across North Dakota and Montana’s Williston Basin and Wyoming’s Powder River Basin.

As a subsidiary of True Companies, Bridger Pipeline could potentially avoid future administrative reversals by completing construction before Trump’s term concludes. The company aims to begin construction in fall 2027 and complete the project by late 2028 or early 2029, according to Bridger spokesperson Bill Salvin.

Trump’s current term concludes on January 20, 2029.

True Company subsidiaries have been involved in several significant pipeline incidents, including a 2015 spill of more than 50,000 gallons of crude into the Yellowstone River that contaminated a Montana community’s water supply, a 45,000-gallon diesel leak in Wyoming in 2022, and a 2016 incident that released over 600,000 gallons of crude in North Dakota, polluting the Little Missouri River and a tributary.

True subsidiaries agreed to a $12.5 million civil penalty to resolve federal litigation related to the North Dakota and Montana incidents.

Salvin explained that the company has implemented an artificial intelligence-powered leak detection system for faster problem identification. The project also includes plans to drill 30 to 40 feet below major waterways like the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers to minimize accident risks. The 2015 incident involved a pipeline built in a shallow riverbed trench.

“We designed the pipeline with integrity and safety in mind. We have emergency response plans should something happen where oil happens to get out of the line, which is fairly rare,” Salvin stated.

Opposition groups include the Montana Environmental Information Center and WildEarth Guardians.

“The biggest concern we see right now is the concern inherent in all pipeline projects which is the risk of spills,” said attorney Jenny Harbine with environmental law firm Earthjustice. “Pipelines rupture and leak. It’s just a fact of pipelines.”

WASHINGTON — Federal lawmakers have temporarily extended a controversial surveillance program until June 12, preventing its Friday expiration while negotiations continue over long-term reforms.

Both chambers of Congress approved the brief extension Thursday, sending it to President Donald Trump for his signature. This stopgap measure comes after the House had already passed a three-year renewal, but lawmakers need additional time to hammer out a final deal.

“I don’t like kicking the can down the road. Not my jam. But that’s where we are,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., stated.

For weeks, Trump and intelligence leaders have pushed lawmakers to reauthorize a crucial section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This provision enables agencies including the CIA, National Security Agency and FBI to gather communications from overseas targets without obtaining warrants.

However, talks have hit roadblocks due to worries that the program inadvertently captures Americans’ communications. Those opposed to the current system want warrant requirements when accessing such communications.

The Senate passed Thursday’s temporary extension through unanimous consent. The House approved it with bipartisan backing in a 261-111 vote, with numerous Democrats supporting the Republican majority.

“I won’t oppose this short extension, but only because it is my fervent hope and determination it will give us the time to work together across the aisle to implement meaningful reforms,” stated Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Several House Republicans voiced opposition before the vote. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie has been among GOP members demanding warrant requirements.

“A short term infringement of the Constitution is still an infringement of the Constitution,” Massie declared on the House floor.

Thune indicated Thursday that the June extension would provide Congress time to collaborate with the White House on program modifications.

“We’ll get to work in earnest and try to find something you actually are able to do a long term extension of the authorization with,” Thune explained.

Worries about surveillance without warrants have complicated efforts by Republican leadership to secure long-term renewal. Earlier this month, lawmakers approved a brief extension through April 30 following a chaotic late-night session.

House GOP leaders appeared to gain momentum Wednesday, overcoming a procedural obstacle for three-year renewal after convincing several Republican holdouts. The measure subsequently passed with bipartisan backing.

However, House leaders attached separate legislation prohibiting a central bank digital currency to secure additional votes. Senate leaders indicated that provision would not advance in their chamber.

Thune said he informed Johnson Wednesday that “what they sent us, we weren’t going to be able to process over here.”

Federal health officials announced Thursday they are withholding an additional $91 million in Medicaid payments to Minnesota, escalating concerns over potential fraud in the state’s federally-funded social programs.

Dr. Mehmet Oz, who leads the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, linked the decision to Tuesday’s federal raids conducted at childcare facilities and learning centers throughout the Minneapolis-St. Paul region that receive Medicaid dollars.

“Minnesota state-run programs have raised serious red flags,” Oz stated in a social media video announcement.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz responded by characterizing the move as political payback from the Trump administration targeting his state.

This latest funding freeze follows an earlier action in February when Vice President JD Vance informed Walz that CMS was temporarily blocking $243 million due to fraud allegations that have plagued the Democratic governor’s tenure. Minnesota filed a lawsuit challenging that decision, expressing concerns about potential healthcare cuts for low-income residents. A federal judge refused to issue a restraining order blocking the action.

The newly frozen $91 million comes on top of the funds already blocked from earlier this year.

According to Oz, $76 million of the latest amount relates to 14 service categories deemed highly susceptible to fraudulent activity. The remaining $14 million involves program oversight issues, including payments made to ineligible recipients, potentially including individuals without legal immigration status.

A December video posted by conservative social media personality Nick Shirley alleged that members of Minnesota’s substantial Somali population were operating fraudulent childcare operations to obtain federal subsidies. The video gained attention from administration officials and conservative groups, despite state investigators dismissing the claims. Oz referenced this video in Thursday’s announcement.

Walz, who served as the 2024 Democratic vice presidential candidate, announced in January he would not seek a third gubernatorial term, pledging instead to focus his efforts on combating fraud.

“While Minnesota is working to stop fraud, the Trump Administration is working to exploit it,” Walz stated. “This is a transparent effort to cut funding for the same working people and rural Minnesota hospitals they’ve had in their crosshairs for months. Minnesota will not stand for this continued campaign of retribution.”

However, Oz defended the action as necessary to safeguard taxpayer funds.

“This isn’t about punishment, it’s about partnership and accountability,” Oz explained. “We’re offering Minnesota the support they need to fix these problems. But at the same time, we cannot and will not pay claims that don’t meet federal standards. So we’re asking for additional documentation to verify these charges.”

The Minnesota Department of Human Services, which oversees the state’s Medicaid program, stood by its fraud prevention efforts, stating it has taken “aggressive action” for over a year to eliminate fraud and recover improper payments.

“We have been reporting to our federal partners and the public about those efforts,” said Commissioner Shireen Gandhi. “We are disappointed to learn that CMS will extend deferrals of needed funds for another quarter. Nonetheless, the department will continue to fight against the criminals who target Medicaid programs.”

While CMS approved Minnesota’s corrective action plan in March, none of the previously withheld $243 million has been released.

The announcement follows last week’s directive from Oz requiring all states to outline their plans for revalidating certain Medicaid providers as part of the Trump administration’s expanded anti-fraud initiative.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Federal lawmakers have given overwhelming approval to expand food stamp purchasing options, allowing recipients to buy hot rotisserie chicken with their benefits for the first time.

The U.S. House of Representatives backed the measure by a decisive 384-35 margin during Farm Bill amendment discussions. Representative Rick Crawford, an Arkansas Republican, sponsored the bipartisan proposal that removes current restrictions on heated rotisserie chicken purchases.

Under existing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program rules, beneficiaries can only purchase rotisserie chicken when it’s sold cold, creating an unusual limitation that the new provision aims to eliminate.

The amendment represents a practical change to SNAP guidelines that could make grocery shopping more convenient for millions of Americans who rely on food assistance benefits.

President Trump revealed Wednesday that the United States is examining potential cuts to its military forces stationed in Germany following a diplomatic dispute with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over Iran policy.

The president stated that America is “studying and reviewing the possible reduction of Troops in Germany,” noting that a determination will be reached “over the next short period of time.”

This development comes after a war of words between the two leaders sparked by Merz’s critique of American strategy following failed negotiations in Islamabad. During remarks to students in Marsberg on Monday, Merz suggested that Iran had diplomatically outmaneuvered the United States.

“The Iranians are obviously very skilled at negotiating, or rather, very skilful at not negotiating, letting the Americans travel to Islamabad and then leave again without any result,” he said.

“An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership, especially by these so-called Revolutionary Guards. And so I hope that this ends as quickly as possible.”

Trump fired back through a Truth Social message on Tuesday, dismissing Merz’s remarks and focusing on Iran’s nuclear program.

“The Chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon,” Trump wrote. “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about! If Iran had a Nuclear Weapon, the whole World would be held hostage.

“I am doing something with Iran, right now, that other Nations, or Presidents, should have done long ago. No wonder Germany is doing so poorly, both Economically, and otherwise!”

Currently, between 35,000 and 38,000 American service members are deployed in Germany, representing the biggest US military footprint in Europe. These forces manage key installations, assist NATO missions, counter regional dangers, and serve as a hub for American military coordination throughout Europe, the Middle East, and surrounding areas.

AUSTIN, Texas — A satirical news publication’s attempt to acquire Alex Jones’ conspiracy theory platform has hit another legal roadblock after a Texas court temporarily suspended the proposed transaction Thursday.

The Onion had planned to transform the Infowars brand, which Jones used to spread misinformation, into comedy websites. However, the acquisition remains uncertain as Infowars undergoes liquidation proceedings to satisfy defamation judgments exceeding $1 billion owed to families affected by the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy. Jones had falsely claimed the shooting was staged.

Under the proposed arrangement, The Onion would receive interim rights to utilize Infowars’ brand names, creative content rights, and other intellectual assets while Texas court-appointed officials oversee the liquidation process.

Thursday’s scheduled court session to consider approving The Onion’s proposal became merely a status update after the Texas Third Court of Appeals granted an emergency request from Jones’ legal team to freeze any transfer of Infowars properties. The presiding judge rescheduled the matter for May 28.

Legal representatives for the Sandy Hook families had petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court decision prior to Thursday’s proceedings.

Ben Collins, who leads The Onion, expressed frustration on social media before the hearing. “This newly insane, unprecedented legal stalling does nothing but delay our deal with the receiver to take control of InfoWars,” Collins stated. “We now expect new traps in Alex Jones’ amoral war to deny paying the Sandy Hook families, but we’re freshly surprised by the U.S. legal system’s appetite to put up with it.”

Meanwhile, Jones celebrated the development in social media videos posted Wednesday evening, claiming The Onion’s acquisition attempt violated legal procedures partly because he maintains active appeals in his case.

“I said days ago there’s no way the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas doesn’t overturn this — you know they’re all Democrats — because it’s so outrageous what you’ve done,” Jones stated.

BOISE, Idaho — A group of six transgender individuals from Idaho have filed a federal lawsuit challenging what they call an unconstitutional bathroom restriction that will become the nation’s most severe when it takes effect this July.

The new Idaho statute makes it a criminal act for individuals to knowingly use restrooms, locker rooms, or changing facilities that don’t align with their birth-assigned gender — including those in privately-owned establishments. First-time violations carry misdemeanor charges with potential jail time of up to one year, while subsequent offenses become felonies punishable by as much as five years imprisonment.

Legal representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal argue the statute forces their clients to choose between isolation at home or facing potential harassment, violence, or criminal charges when accessing public facilities.

“I’ve been enjoying life as a man and using the men’s restrooms hasn’t been a big deal,” plaintiff Diego Fable explained in a statement. “But this law would force me to use the women’s facilities, and doing so would only invite suspicion, questions, and raised eyebrows. I would have to face tough choices every time I leave my home: Do I know the restroom situation when I go out to eat with my friends? Do I know the restrooms available when I go to public parks to go birding? What do I do while I’m at work all day?”

Republican Senator Ben Toews, who helped sponsor the legislation, stated in March that the measure aims to safeguard women and children. He proposed that transgender individuals could seek out single-occupancy, gender-neutral facilities as an alternative.

However, the legal filing reveals that Fable’s workplace, neighborhood grocery stores, and various restaurants, conference venues, and gas stations only offer multi-user gendered restrooms. The lawsuit notes that others view Fable as male, creating concerns about potential violence if he enters women’s facilities as the new statute requires.

“Ultimately, complying with this law would be extremely isolating,” Fable stated. “The only safe option truly available is to just stay home –- or leave the state entirely, leaving my treasured friends and community behind.”

Fellow plaintiffs share comparable worries. Peter Poe, a bearded transgender man, believes using women’s restrooms would create disruption. Amelia Milette, a transgender woman whose work involves visiting client offices that typically lack gender-neutral options, said she plans to restrict her food and drink intake to minimize public restroom needs if the law proceeds.

Currently, at least 19 states including Idaho have enacted restrictions preventing transgender people from using bathrooms and changing areas matching their gender identity in educational settings and sometimes other public locations. According to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group that monitors such legislation, three additional states — Florida, Kansas and Utah — have criminalized bathroom law violations under certain conditions.

Idaho’s statute stands apart by extending broadly to private enterprises, covering any “place of public accommodation” that serves the general public. The law includes nine specific exemptions for circumstances such as janitorial duties, emergency response, child assistance, or cases involving “dire need” for restroom access.

The legal challenge argues the restriction will inflict emotional damage, worsen gender dysphoria, and potentially cause health issues including kidney and urinary tract problems from restroom avoidance. Plaintiffs claim the statute is unnecessarily unclear, creates sex-based and transgender discrimination, and infringes upon constitutional privacy rights by compelling disclosure of transgender identity.

“This law is a dangerous and discriminatory effort to push transgender people out of public life,” declared Barbara Schwabauer, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project.

Schwabauer indicated they would seek complete blocking of the law’s implementation. “If you cannot use the restroom at work, you cannot go to work. If you cannot use the restroom at school, you cannot go to school,” she explained.

The lawsuit names Attorney General Raúl Labrador and several county prosecutors as defendants.

“We look forward to defending the law,” Labrador’s office responded in an email to The Associated Press.

A new Harvard CAPS Harris survey reveals a significant generational divide in American attitudes toward the Israel-Hamas conflict, with younger voters showing notably less backing for Israel compared to older generations.

The poll, conducted from April 23-26 among 2,745 registered voters, found that 74% of Americans overall favor Israel over Hamas. However, this support varies dramatically by age group, with only 54% of 18-24 year-olds siding with Israel, while 89% of those 65 and older express support.

Political party affiliation also influenced responses, with 86% of Republicans supporting Israel compared to 66% of Democrats and 68% of independents. Among the 25-34 age bracket, 60% backed Israel, still well below the national average.

When rating regional players, 41% of voters viewed Israel positively versus 36% unfavorably. In sharp contrast, Hamas received just 9% favorable ratings with 59% viewing it negatively. Iran fared slightly better at 12% favorable and 65% unfavorable, while the Palestinian Authority earned 16% positive and 44% negative ratings.

The survey revealed that 76% of Americans classify Hamas and similar border groups as terrorist organizations. This view was shared by 70% of Democrats, 83% of Republicans, and 75% of independents. Among the youngest voters (18-24), 60% held this view, compared to 90% of seniors.

Respondents differed on what motivates these groups. Forty-three percent believed they seek to destroy Israel, 23% thought they want territorial expansion, and 34% said they’re fighting for rights. Democrats were more likely to see these groups as rights-seekers, with 48% holding this view, particularly among voters under 44.

The Middle East conflict has captured significant American attention, with 67% closely following the war involving Israel, the United States, and Iran. One in five respondents ranked it as their primary concern after domestic issues.

Regarding Iran specifically, 65% consider it a national security threat to America, and 67% blame Iranian leadership for regional instability, terrorism, and warfare. Nearly three-quarters (74%) believe preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons serves U.S. interests.

Americans showed more caution regarding military intervention. Fifty-two percent endorsed strikes against Iran, while 54% deemed such action justifiable. Opinion was split on continuing the conflict, with 43% wanting immediate cessation and 34% supporting continuation.

The poll carries a margin of error of 1.87 percentage points with 95% confidence.

WASHINGTON — Following the recent White House meeting with Britain’s King Charles III and Queen Camilla, President Donald Trump announced Thursday his decision to eliminate specific tariffs on Scotch whisky imports.

Taking to social media, Trump declared: “The King and Queen got me to do something that nobody else was able to do, without hardly even asking!”

According to Trump’s announcement, the decision addresses longstanding requests from various stakeholders, particularly concerning the wooden barrels used for aging both Scotch whisky and bourbon.

The president has previously leveraged alcoholic beverages in his tariff strategy. He previously threatened European wine imports with a potential 200% tariff that would have significantly impacted French and Italian wine producers, though this threat was never implemented.

International partners have countered with their own tariff proposals targeting American bourbon and similar products.

During his previous term, the Trump administration chose to exclude cork from tariff measures, providing significant relief to Portugal, which dominates the global wine cork supply market.

The Distilled Spirits Council’s president and CEO, Chris Swonger, views Trump’s announcement as eliminating the 10% duty on British whisky imports.

“We applaud President Trump for working to restore a proven zero‑for‑zero model of fair, reciprocal trade between our two nations,” Swonger stated. “This action strengthens transatlantic ties, brings much‑needed certainty to our industry and allows spirits producers on both sides of the Atlantic to grow, invest and support jobs at a critical time.”

President Donald Trump announced Thursday his intention to eliminate tariffs and trade barriers that have hindered collaboration between Scotland and Kentucky in the whiskey and bourbon sectors.

In a Thursday post on his Truth Social platform, Trump indicated the policy change would address longstanding trade issues. “People have wanted to do this for a long time, in that there had been great Inter-Country Trade, especially having to do with the Wooden Barrels used,” Trump wrote.

The announcement comes as trade relations between the United States and United Kingdom operate under a 2025 agreement that permits Washington to establish a 10% baseline tariff on most British imports.

The proposed changes would specifically target restrictions that have limited Scotland’s ability to collaborate with Kentucky’s bourbon industry, potentially opening new opportunities for cross-Atlantic partnerships in whiskey production and related industries.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order Thursday establishing a federal website designed to help American workers locate and evaluate private retirement savings options, targeting millions of employees whose companies don’t provide such benefits.

The directive seeks to expand access to retirement accounts ahead of next year’s launch of a federal matching program for low- and middle-income earners, a White House official confirmed while requesting anonymity before the formal announcement.

The matching benefit, called the Saver’s Match, stems from 2022 legislation enacted during Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration. Beginning in January, the program will provide matching funds up to $1,000 annually for employees earning under $35,000.

Trump’s directive targets approximately 50 million Americans lacking employer-sponsored retirement benefits. The Republican president will instruct the Treasury Department to create TrumpIRA.gov, a platform where employees can evaluate private-sector retirement options.

The initiative doesn’t establish a new federal retirement program but instead connects workers with existing private company plans.

News outlet Semafor initially disclosed details of the executive order.

During his February State of the Union speech, Trump addressed this concept, highlighting that roughly half of Americans lack access to workplace retirement plans with employer matching.

“To remedy this gross disparity, I’m announcing that next year my administration will give these often-forgotten American workers — great people, the people that built our country — access to the same type of retirement plan offered to every federal worker,” Trump stated.

The Saver’s Match initiative will provide maximum matching benefits of $1,000 for individual tax filers and $2,000 for married couples filing together. Reduced matching amounts will be available for single filers earning below $46,000 annually. The program covers contributions to 401(k) accounts, traditional IRAs, and Roth IRAs.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional lawmakers voted Thursday to provide funding for most Department of Homeland Security operations following weeks of political gridlock, bringing the historic agency shutdown to a close with bipartisan legislation now heading to President Donald Trump.

White House officials had issued warnings that temporary funding measures Trump had used to maintain Transportation Security Administration operations and other critical agency functions were nearing depletion, raising concerns about potential airport service interruptions.

The Department of Homeland Security had operated without standard funding authorization since February 14, creating financial difficulties for agency employees, although much of Trump’s immigration policy priorities at the center of the funding dispute continue to receive separate financial support.

“It is about damn time,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, who proposed the bill more than two months ago.

Lawmakers approved the legislation through a swift voice vote rather than conducting a formal recorded vote.

House Speaker Mike Johnson’s narrow Republican majority has faced repeated legislative obstacles, with party members engaged in internal disagreements across multiple policy areas, including this homeland security funding debate. Despite the Senate’s unanimous approval of the bipartisan measure one month earlier, the legislation remained stalled in the House chamber.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Following months of political stalemate, lawmakers in the House of Representatives passed legislation Thursday to restore funding to most Department of Homeland Security operations, sending the bipartisan measure to President Donald Trump’s desk and bringing closure to an unprecedented agency shutdown.

The administration had cautioned that emergency funding Trump had utilized to maintain operations for the Transportation Security Administration and other critical personnel was nearing depletion, raising concerns about potential airport service interruptions.

The Department of Homeland Security has operated without standard appropriations since February 14, creating financial strain for employees. However, much of Trump’s immigration enforcement priorities at the center of the funding dispute continue to receive separate financial support.

“It is about damn time,” declared Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the leading Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, who had introduced the legislation over two months earlier.

Lawmakers quickly approved the legislation through a voice vote, bypassing the need for an official recorded vote.

House Speaker Mike Johnson’s slim Republican majority has faced repeated setbacks, with internal party conflicts hampering progress on multiple legislative priorities, including the homeland security appropriations. Despite the Senate’s unanimous approval of the bipartisan package four weeks ago, the legislation remained stalled in the House chamber.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced Thursday he is withdrawing Casey Means’ nomination for surgeon general and will instead nominate Fox News Channel contributor Nicole Saphier after Means faced significant Senate opposition over her vaccine views and medical background.

Trump praised Saphier in a Thursday social media announcement, calling her “a STAR physician who has spent her career guiding women facing breast cancer through their diagnosis and treatment.”

Means encountered intense questioning from senators across party lines regarding her positions on vaccines and other health issues during a difficult confirmation hearing, raising serious concerns about whether she could gather sufficient support for confirmation.

Before announcing the switch, Trump defended Means on social media Thursday morning, calling her “a strong MAHA Warrior” while attacking what he termed “intransigence and political games” from Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, who had pressed Means hard on vaccine issues during her hearing.

The decision to pull Means’ nomination represents a significant setback for Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his movement, which had strongly backed Means for the surgeon general position despite her unconventional medical background and past controversial statements regarding vaccines and health policy.

The nomination collapse followed heated confrontations between Means and senators from both parties that cast doubt on her ability to secure enough committee votes to advance. Her nomination had been stuck since her late February confirmation hearing, despite efforts by Kennedy’s Make America Great Again movement supporters who flooded Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine with phone calls, though both had expressed concerns about the selection.

Trump’s original nomination of Means last May was aimed at installing a Kennedy ally as the country’s chief medical officer. Means, a Stanford-trained doctor who became disillusioned with traditional healthcare and transitioned to writing and business ventures, advocates for principles central to the MAHA movement, arguing that Americans receive excessive medical treatment and that dietary and lifestyle modifications should be prioritized in combating chronic diseases nationwide.

WASHINGTON, April 30 – House Republicans have announced plans to hold a vote Thursday afternoon on legislation that would provide funding for the Department of Homeland Security and its key agencies.

The funding measure, which has already received approval from the Senate, would allocate resources to critical security organizations including the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard.

The vote is scheduled to take place during the early afternoon hours on Thursday, according to the Republican-controlled chamber’s leadership.

CHICAGO – A state-appointed panel in Illinois is urging local district attorneys to examine potential wrongdoing by federal immigration officers following last year’s intensive enforcement operations in the Chicago region.

The Illinois Accountability Commission, headed by former U.S. District Judge Rubén Castillo, released findings Thursday that detailed what the group characterized as systematic “unjustified and excessive force” and “indiscriminate use of chemical agents” by federal personnel.

After collecting witness statements and examining extensive court documents and news coverage, the commission called for additional scrutiny by Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke along with other local law enforcement officials and federal agencies capable of gathering more evidence.

The enforcement initiative, known as Operation Midway Blitz under the Trump administration, resulted in thousands of detentions and violent clashes between federal immigration officers and demonstrators. According to body camera recordings, agents fired shots at two individuals – killing one – while threatening to shoot additional people. Officers used tear gas, pepper projectiles and rubber bullets against protesters gathered outside an immigration detention facility in Broadview, Illinois, and throughout various Chicago communities.

The White House has not yet provided a response to requests for comment.

At Thursday’s press briefing, Judge Castillo referenced the shooting incident involving Marimar Martinez, an American citizen who teaches at a Montessori school in Oak Park, by Border Patrol Agent Charles Exum. “You would think that she was shot by some gang member on the South Side of Chicago. And she was. But guess what? That gang was Customs and Border Patrol. And the person who sent that gang to Illinois and to Chicago? Someone living on Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House,” Castillo said. Martinez recovered from her injuries and initially faced federal criminal charges in one of many cases that were subsequently dismissed.

WASHINGTON — The California man facing charges for allegedly attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner has consented to staying behind bars while his case proceeds through the courts.

Cole Thomas Allen made no plea entry during his Thursday court appearance, just days after law enforcement says he charged past security screening at the Washington Hilton carrying firearms and knives, disrupting one of Washington D.C.’s most prominent annual gatherings.

Saturday evening’s incident left Allen wounded, though he was not struck by gunfire. A Secret Service officer sustained a gunshot wound but survived thanks to protective body armor, according to officials. Federal prosecutors indicate Allen discharged his shotgun at least one time while a Secret Service agent returned fire with five rounds. Authorities have not definitively stated whether Allen’s weapon caused the officer’s injury.

Court documents filed Wednesday seeking Allen’s continued incarceration reveal that he photographed himself in his hotel room moments before the attack, equipped with ammunition pouches, a gun holster, and a knife in its sheath. In communications that prosecutors say illuminate his intentions, Allen described himself as a “Friendly Federal Assassin” and made indirect references to complaints about various Trump administration policies.

Defense attorneys reversed course during the hearing before U.S. Magistrate Moxila Upadhyaya, agreeing to keep Allen incarcerated after previously advocating for his release in earlier filings.

Wednesday’s defense filing stated that the prosecution’s argument “is based upon inferences drawn about Mr. Allen’s intent that raise more questions than answers” and emphasized that Allen’s written statements never specifically named Trump. The defense team indicated they may seek Allen’s pre-trial release at a later date.

“The government’s evidence of the charged offense –- the attempted assassination of the president –- is thus built entirely upon speculation, even under the most generous reading of its theory,” defense lawyers wrote.

Allen’s legal team claimed that some remarks from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche “indicate that the recovered ballistics evidence is inconsistent with aspects of the government’s theory, evidence collected by the government and/or statements made by witnesses.”

The Justice Department countered that evidence demonstrates Allen fired his shotgun at least once toward the Secret Service agent. Crime scene investigators found at least one fragment matching a buckshot pellet, according to prosecutors.

“The government is aware of no physical evidence, digital video evidence, or witness statements that are inconsistent with the theory that your client fired his shotgun in the direction” of the officer or that the officer “was indeed shot once in the chest while wearing a ballistic vest,” prosecutors wrote.

Monday’s charges against Allen include the assassination attempt plus two additional weapons violations, including firing a gun during a violent crime. The assassination charge alone carries a potential life sentence upon conviction.

The 31-year-old Allen hails from Torrance, California, and works as an educated tutor while developing video games as a hobby.

WASHINGTON – White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett announced Thursday that the administration is actively discussing ways to rapidly boost domestic oil production as the Iran conflict threatens global energy supplies.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Hassett revealed ongoing discussions with energy companies about expediting production increases. “We’ve been in constant communication with the oil companies, and have been considering measures that we could take here in the U.S. to increase U.S. production really soon,” Hassett stated.

The economic adviser indicated that regulatory barriers may be slowing potential production increases. “There are things, regulations that are holding up, like how quickly stuff could come through … and we’re studying those, how we can change those, and we’ve been talking to oil companies about that,” he explained.

The administration’s focus on domestic energy production comes as officials seek to minimize the economic impact of supply disruptions caused by the ongoing conflict involving Iran.

LENEXA, Kan. — A prominent religious leader who oversees the country’s biggest United Methodist congregation announced Thursday his bid for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination in Kansas, dramatically reshaping the political landscape in a traditionally red state where the GOP’s narrow congressional control appears increasingly vulnerable.

Rev. Adam Hamilton joins the contest as a potentially powerful contender, though questions remain about whether any of the eight other lesser-known Democratic hopefuls will exit the August 4th primary race. The Democratic nominee will challenge sitting Republican Senator Roger Marshall, who closely allied himself with former President Donald Trump during his initial 2020 Senate campaign.

At 61 years old, Hamilton commands a nationwide audience among mainstream Protestant denominations and has grown his Church of the Resurrection congregation to approximately 22,000 members over three and a half decades in the Kansas City region — providing him with an established network for recruiting campaign workers and financial supporters.

Hamilton initially contemplated an independent campaign, informing his parishioners he could help heal partisan rifts during these deeply divided political times, though many Democratic leaders worried such a move would divide opposition votes against Marshall and boost the Republican’s chances for reelection.

“Every week, it seemed there was another news story in the last year where I would find myself shaking my head and thinking, we have to do better,” the minister, who describes himself as a fifth-generation Kansas native, shared with his congregation.

Although Democrats and Republicans have alternated control of the Kansas governor’s mansion over six decades, Republicans have maintained an unbroken streak in U.S. Senate contests dating back to 1932. Despite a competitive Democratic challenge in 2020, Marshall secured victory by more than 11 points, even while Democrat Joe Biden defeated Trump nationally and Democrats gained congressional majorities.

Hamilton’s campaign bears similarities to Texas Democratic candidate James Talarico, a Presbyterian seminary student who frequently discusses how his religious beliefs shape his policy positions, though Hamilton brings significantly more life experience at a generation older.

Among other Democratic candidates, state Senator Patrick Schmidt stands out as the most recognizable name, having mounted an unsuccessful congressional campaign in 2022.

Hamilton, a resident of Stillwell near the Kansas City metropolitan area, has consistently demonstrated an ability to build large followings. After completing his education at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa and Southern Methodist University in Dallas, his denomination selected the 25-year-old to establish a new church in suburban Kansas City specifically targeting non-churchgoers.

The congregation began meeting in a modest funeral home chapel and has since expanded to nine locations. The primary campus spans 76 acres in an upscale suburb and resembles a small college campus. Their annual Christmas Eve collection, dedicated to missionary activities, sometimes exceeds $2 million.

“I’ve raised a lot money over the years and I’m not afraid to do that,” Hamilton stated before his official announcement.

Hamilton has authored numerous published works and his video-based educational content is widely used in Sunday school programs nationwide. In 2013, he delivered remarks at the National Prayer Service.

His campaign launch occurs during what appears to be a difficult midterm election cycle for Republicans. Public opinion surveys indicate most Americans believe U.S. military actions against Iran have been excessive and voters express growing concern about Trump’s inability to tackle cost-of-living challenges.

Hamilton’s Johnson County home base represents the state’s most populated area, housing 643,000 residents — more than 20% of all Kansans. Previously a Republican stronghold, the county has shifted toward Democratic candidates, rejecting Trump in both recent presidential elections.

This demographic change explains how a state with a heavily Republican legislature maintains a Democratic governor.

Hamilton’s political positioning remains crucial, as he must attract disenchanted Republicans and independent voters — the same coalition that powered Democrat Laura Kelly’s 2018 gubernatorial victory and narrow 2022 reelection.

His congregation includes roughly equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats and Independents, and Hamilton characterizes himself as “a liberal conservative and a conservative liberal.”

While Hamilton lacks elected office experience, his extensive record of sermons, podcasts and social media content provides insight into his viewpoints.

During increased federal law enforcement activity in Minneapolis, Hamilton referenced Old Testament scripture instructing Israelites to treat foreigners with love and justice.

Regarding abortion rights, the father of two who married his high school girlfriend revealed during a recent listening tour that he opposed a state constitutional amendment that would have enabled stricter abortion limitations or complete bans in Kansas.

“I didn’t think that our state legislators should be the ethicists and the spiritual guides for all of the women of the state of Kansas,” he explained while emotionally recounting his counseling of sexual assault survivors and his mother’s consideration of abortion when she became pregnant with him as a teenager. “I feel both of these things at the same time.”

His church also exerted financial influence before the United Methodist Church conference overturned long-standing anti-LGBTQ policies. “We’ve lost a thousand people over the years because this was our commitment, and so I want to say that I will take that commitment with me to Washington D.C.,” he declared during his listening tour.

Hamilton indicated that if elected, he would continue his pastoral duties while reducing his preaching schedule to approximately 12 to 18 services annually.

“Can you imagine a future,” he asked, “where Republicans and Democrats and Independents work together to actually solve problems?”

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has withdrawn from his congressional campaign just one month after announcing his candidacy, choosing instead to launch a nonprofit organization dedicated to tackling the nation’s debt crisis.

The 65-year-old Republican, whose political career was severely damaged by a highly publicized extramarital affair in 2009, informed The Associated Press on Thursday that he was closing down his campaign for South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District seat.

“What I hope to do is to indeed build a grassroots organization — start small, but I have a fair size circle of friends and folks with whom I have some degree of influence and contacts,” Sanford explained to the AP. He also mentioned that with his first grandchild expected soon, he recognized during his campaign launch that he wanted more time with his family.

Sanford had jumped into an already crowded Republican primary field on the final day for candidate registration, facing multiple opponents who had been preparing their campaigns for months.

This wasn’t Sanford’s first time as a political underdog. When he initially ran for Congress in 1994, he was virtually unknown but managed to secure second place in the GOP primary before winning the runoff. After serving six years in the House, he successfully navigated another competitive primary to become governor, defeating the state’s last Democratic governor.

However, Sanford’s gubernatorial tenure became synonymous with scandal when he vanished for several days in 2009, claiming he was hiking the Appalachian Trail while actually visiting his mistress in Argentina. His wife, staff, and family were left unaware of his whereabouts during his absence.

Despite facing impeachment proceedings and widespread calls for his resignation, Sanford refused to step down and completed his gubernatorial term. His then-wife Jenny Sanford left the governor’s mansion in Columbia, took their four children to their Charleston-area beach house, and eventually divorced him.

Sanford staged a political comeback in 2013, winning a special election to reclaim his former House seat by defeating 15 primary opponents through multiple rounds of voting. He secured two additional full terms before losing in 2018 to a Republican challenger endorsed by then-President Donald Trump.

Following that defeat, Sanford attempted another comeback by challenging Trump for the 2020 Republican presidential nomination, positioning himself as a fiscally conservative alternative to Trump’s divisive messaging. However, he abandoned that effort just before the New Hampshire primary.

During his recent campaign activities, including appearances at county Republican gatherings and candidate debates, Sanford reported receiving “a warm reception” from voters. Nevertheless, he concluded that working outside of Congress would give him greater freedom to focus exclusively on debt-related matters.

“There are no guarantees with life, but I think that this has a better chance of elevating that issue, if I worked earnestly on it, than I was going to with the course that I was on with the campaign,” Sanford stated.

For his new South Carolina-based organization, Sanford plans to utilize over $1.3 million remaining in his federal campaign account from his 2019 departure from Congress. Using these funds, he said, demonstrates his commitment to stepping away from personal political ambitions.

When asked about permanently leaving politics, Sanford remained characteristically unpredictable.

“Look, if there’s ever a guy who would say, ‘Never say never,’ it’s me,” Sanford remarked. “But I think, realistically, yeah, and it’s recognition of that being the case.”

The Post and Courier of Charleston first broke the story of Sanford’s campaign withdrawal.

BATON ROUGE, La. — Louisiana has called off its May congressional primary elections following a Wednesday Supreme Court decision that invalidated a majority-Black congressional district, state leadership announced Thursday.

Republican Governor Jeff Landry and GOP Attorney General Liz Murrill announced in a combined statement that the high court’s Wednesday decision prevents the state from conducting primaries using existing district boundaries. Early voting was set to commence Saturday ahead of the May 16 primary date.

“The State is currently enjoined from carrying out congressional elections under the current map,” Landry and Murrill said in the statement posted to social media. “We are working together with the Legislature and the Secretary of State’s office to develop a path forward.”

Democratic officials criticized the election postponement.

“This is going to cause mass confusion among voters — Democrats, Republicans, white, Black, everybody,” said Louisiana state Sen. Royce Duplessis, a Democrat who represents the New Orleans area. “What they’re effectively doing is changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game. It’s rigging the system.”

Louisiana’s current U.S. House delegation includes four Republicans and two Democrats. A redrawn map might allow Republicans to gain at least one additional seat during November’s midterm elections — contributing to GOP advances elsewhere in an unprecedented national redistricting fight.

Congressional districts are normally redrawn once per decade following each census. However, former President Donald Trump last year encouraged Texas Republicans to redraw House districts to benefit the GOP in midterm races. California Democrats responded similarly, and redistricting efforts subsequently spread to other states.

Wednesday saw Florida become the newest state to redraw its U.S. House districts, approving a new map supported by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis that might allow the GOP to capture several more seats.

The Florida decision happened just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority released a decision that substantially reduced minority safeguards under the federal Voting Rights Act. The court determined that Louisiana officials placed excessive emphasis on race when creating a congressional district currently represented by Democrat Cleo Fields.

Following the 2020 census, Louisiana officials created House district boundaries that preserved one Black-majority district and five predominantly white districts, in a state where approximately one-third of residents are Black.

A federal judge subsequently invalidated the map for Voting Rights Act violations. The following year, the Supreme Court determined that Alabama must establish its own second majority-Black congressional district.

Louisiana’s legislature and governor then approved a new House map establishing a second Black-majority district. However, this map faced court challenges as well, resulting in the latest Supreme Court decision.

PORTLAND, Maine — Maine Governor Janet Mills announced Thursday she is ending her campaign for the United States Senate, withdrawing from the Democratic primary scheduled for June 9 in what had become a closely watched contest.

Mills cited inadequate campaign funding as the primary reason for her decision to step aside from the race that was seen as crucial for Democrats hoping to gain Senate control.

“While I have the drive and passion, commitment and experience, and above all else – the fight – to continue on, I very simply do not have the one thing that political campaigns unfortunately require today: the financial resources,” Mills stated in her announcement. “That is why today I have made the incredibly difficult decision to suspend my campaign for the United States Senate.”

The two-term governor and veteran Maine political figure had been viewed as a premier Democratic candidate for 2026 when she launched her Senate campaign last year. Mills received support from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and several progressive advocacy organizations in their effort to defeat Republican Senator Susan Collins and potentially shift Senate control to Democrats.

However, Mills found herself unable to match the momentum generated by newcomer Graham Platner, her primary challenger. Platner has sustained significant support despite facing scrutiny over previous online statements and a tattoo widely associated with Nazi imagery.

In her withdrawal statement, Mills refrained from backing Platner but pledged to continue protecting constitutional principles and democratic values during her remaining time as governor.

Following Mills’ announcement, Schumer and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York indicated they would collaborate with Platner in the effort to unseat Collins.

“Our North Star is winning a Democratic Senate majority, and over the past year, Senate Democrats have carved out multiple paths to do that,” they said in a joint statement.

The Mills-Platner primary battle exemplified larger Democratic Party discussions about the most effective strategies for defeating Republican candidates and regaining influence in Washington under President Donald Trump’s administration, where Republicans hold the presidency and both congressional chambers.

Platner has earned endorsements from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who serves as an independent but aligns with Democrats, along with Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ruben Gallego of Arizona, and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico.

Mills had attempted to position herself as the strongest candidate to challenge Trump, frequently referencing her confrontational stance toward the former president, including her declaration that she would “see him in court” regarding Maine’s legal battles with the Trump administration over federal funding and transgender athlete policies.

Despite these efforts, Mills’ messaging often seemed overshadowed by Platner’s growing appeal among voters. His campaign events have drawn thousands of attendees as he promoted his populist platform and maintained a heavy advertising presence.

The age factor also emerged as a campaign issue, with some Democrats advocating for younger leadership within the party. Mills, at 78, is significantly older than the 41-year-old Platner, while Collins is 73.

Political analysts had initially expected Platner, rather than Mills, might be the candidate forced to exit the race.

Platner has faced persistent questions regarding a skull-and-crossbones tattoo on his chest that resembles Nazi symbolism, which he says he obtained during a drinking incident while on military leave in Croatia. He reports the tattoo has been modified to eliminate the problematic imagery. He has also addressed criticism over controversial statements in past online posts, which he has since rejected.

However, Platner’s openness about addressing these past issues appears to have strengthened his standing with voters.

Former President Donald Trump launched a public rebuke against German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Thursday, urging the European leader to prioritize ending the Russia-Ukraine conflict rather than meddling in efforts to address Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The confrontation between Trump and Merz has escalated in recent days over Iran-related matters. Earlier this week, Trump dismissed Merz’s understanding of the situation after the German chancellor claimed that Iranian forces were embarrassing the United States during negotiations to conclude the two-month conflict.

Trump delivered his sharp response through a post on his Truth Social platform.

“The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time on ending the war with Russia/Ukraine (Where he has been totally ineffective!), and fixing his broken Country, especially Immigration and Energy, and less time on interfering with those that are getting rid of the Iran Nuclear threat, thereby making the World, including Germany, a safer place!” Trump stated.

PORTLAND, Maine — Maine Governor Janet Mills announced Thursday she is ending her campaign for the United States Senate, withdrawing from the race just weeks ahead of the June 9 Democratic primary in what had become a contentious battle highlighting divisions within the party about electoral strategy.

“While I have the drive and passion, commitment and experience, and above all else – the fight – to continue on, I very simply do not have the one thing that political campaigns unfortunately require today: the financial resources,” Mills stated in her announcement. “That is why today I have made the incredibly difficult decision to suspend my campaign for the United States Senate.”

The two-term governor and veteran Maine political figure had been considered among the Democratic Party’s strongest potential candidates for 2026 when she launched her campaign last year. Mills enjoyed endorsements from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and several progressive organizations eager to challenge Republican Senator Susan Collins and potentially shift control of the narrowly divided Senate.

However, Mills found herself unable to match the campaign energy generated by political newcomer Graham Platner, her rival in the upcoming Democratic primary. Platner has sustained significant support from voters despite facing scrutiny over previous online statements and a tattoo that has been identified as a Nazi symbol.

In her withdrawal statement, Mills chose not to back Platner’s candidacy, instead pledging to continue protecting constitutional principles and democratic values during her remaining time as governor.

Senate leadership quickly pivoted to support the remaining candidate, with Schumer and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York announcing their commitment to working with Platner against Collins.

“Our North Star is winning a Democratic Senate majority, and over the past year, Senate Democrats have carved out multiple paths to do that,” they said in a joint statement.

The Mills-Platner primary battle exemplified larger Democratic Party discussions about the most effective approaches to challenging Republican incumbents and regaining influence in Washington under President Donald Trump’s administration, where Republicans control both the executive branch and Congress.

Platner has secured backing from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, along with Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ruben Gallego of Arizona, and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico.

Throughout her campaign, Mills emphasized her readiness to confront Trump, frequently referencing her past declaration that she would “see him in court” — alluding to Maine’s legal challenges against the Trump administration regarding federal funding disputes and transgender athlete participation policies.

Despite these efforts, Mills’ messaging often seemed overshadowed by Platner’s growing campaign momentum. His rallies have drawn thousands of attendees as he promoted his populist platform and maintained a heavy advertising presence across media outlets.

Generational differences also emerged as a campaign factor, with some Democrats advocating for younger leadership within the party. Mills is 78 years old, compared to Platner’s 41 years, while incumbent Senator Collins is 73.

Political analysts had initially expected Platner, rather than Mills, might be the candidate forced to exit the race.

Platner has faced persistent questions about a skull-and-crossbones tattoo identified as Nazi imagery, which he says he received on his chest during a drinking episode while on military leave in Croatia. He has stated the tattoo has been modified to eliminate that symbolism. He has also addressed criticism over provocative statements in previous online posts, which he has since renounced.

However, Platner’s openness in discussing these past errors appears to have contributed to his positive public reception.

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia — James Comey, who previously served as FBI Director, made his way to a federal courthouse in Virginia Wednesday, one day following criminal charges filed against him for what authorities describe as threatening President Donald Trump through social media.

The former law enforcement chief surrendered on two criminal counts: threatening a president’s life and sending threatening communications across state boundaries. During his brief courtroom appearance, Comey remained silent while his legal representative, Patrick Fitzgerald, indicated plans to challenge what he termed vindictive prosecution designed to retaliate against his client’s constitutional rights.

Federal Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick from Virginia’s Eastern District allowed Comey’s release without imposing restrictions. The case will move to North Carolina, where a federal grand jury issued the charges Tuesday. Family members of Comey arrived at the courthouse before proceedings commenced.

Comey maintains his innocence and plans to contest the allegations through legal channels.

These charges represent continued legal pressure from Trump’s Justice Department against Comey, who faced unsuccessful prosecution previously in an unrelated matter. This development reflects an intensified effort to pursue criminal cases against individuals viewed as Trump’s political opponents. Trump specifically named Comey in social media posts last year demanding criminal prosecution of his rivals.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Comey remained attentive as Judge Fitzpatrick announced the charges, which could result in up to five years imprisonment.

CONTROVERSIAL SOCIAL MEDIA POST

The criminal allegations center on Comey’s Instagram post from last May displaying seashells positioned on sand to create “86 47.”

Restaurant industry slang uses “86” to mean removing or ejecting someone, while “47” potentially references Trump as America’s 47th president.

Federal prosecutors contend any reasonable person receiving this message would understand it as threatening Trump.

Speaking to media Wednesday, Trump characterized “86” as a “mob term.”

“People think of it as something having to do with disappearing, but the mob uses that term to say when they want to kill somebody,” Trump told reporters at the White House.

When questioned about whether the post endangered his safety, Trump replied, “Probably. I don’t know.”

Comey removed the post quickly after publication, explaining he intended it as political commentary and didn’t realize the numbers could suggest violence.

This marks Comey’s second criminal case under Trump’s current administration, following a dismissed congressional perjury case.

ONGOING POLITICAL CONFLICT

Trump has consistently criticized Comey regarding his supervision of FBI investigations into alleged connections between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russian representatives.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has rapidly implemented Trump’s demands for criminal prosecutions. His predecessor, Pam Bondi, lost her position partly for insufficient progress on these cases.

Since Blanche assumed leadership this month, the Justice Department has filed charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center, restored firing squad and electrocution for federal executions, published criticism of previous anti-abortion activist prosecutions, and indicted an assistant to Dr. Anthony Fauci, former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, for allegedly hiding COVID-19 research documents.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS

Legal experts have broadly criticized Comey’s prosecution, arguing it violates First Amendment free speech protections. Supreme Court precedent establishes strict requirements for threat prosecutions, demanding proof defendants knew or should have understood their communications would be perceived as death or injury threats.

“It is shocking that this indictment was even brought, and there really is no explanation for it other than it is part of a retaliatory campaign against Comey,” said Thomas Berry, a constitutional lawyer at the libertarian Cato Institute. “There is no chance he will ever be convicted.”

Blanche refused Tuesday to reveal prosecutorial evidence against Comey but indicated the government would demonstrate intent through documents, witness statements, and Comey’s behavior.

Legal scholars highlighted Comey’s own disclaimers about the post following controversy and the unclear meaning of “86” in this situation. First Amendment protections extend to political expression using violent or threatening language.

“The bar is high because under the First Amendment, we don’t criminalize speech. Words are not crimes, except under a very limited number of circumstances,” said Jared Carter, a professor with the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic.

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth returns to Capitol Hill Thursday for another round of intense questioning from lawmakers, as senators prepare to challenge or defend his management of the ongoing Iran conflict.

The Defense Secretary endured nearly six hours of contentious questioning Wednesday before the House Armed Services Committee, where both Democratic and Republican lawmakers pressed him on the financial burden of the war, casualty figures, and depleting supplies of essential military equipment.

Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Committee session will include discussion of the Trump administration’s proposed 2027 defense budget, seeking to increase military spending to an unprecedented $1.5 trillion. Hegseth will appear alongside Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine to advocate for expanded drone capabilities, enhanced missile defense infrastructure, and additional naval vessels.

In other developments, a federal appeals court Wednesday declined to reconsider an $83 million defamation judgment against President Trump involving magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hold an “en banc” hearing months after Trump challenged a separate $5 million verdict in favor of Carroll at the Supreme Court level.

Carroll’s legal representative, Roberta Kaplan, expressed her client’s desire to conclude the litigation that began in 2019. “She is eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice,” Kaplan stated.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats criticized the Trump administration’s environmental policies during Wednesday hearings, condemning proposed cuts that would slash the EPA’s budget by half. Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the reductions during his third budget hearing this week, having already overseen staff reductions to historically low levels.

Zeldin has dismantled major climate initiatives, advanced what he describes as America’s most significant deregulation effort, and terminated billions in Biden-era environmental justice funding to eliminate what he calls “EPA’s radical diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.”

Oil markets reacted sharply Thursday as Brent crude briefly exceeded $126 per barrel amid stalled U.S.-Iran negotiations. The uncertainty surrounding Strait of Hormuz reopening and potential war resolution drove June Brent crude up 3.3% to $121.90, while U.S. benchmark crude rose 1.3% to $108.28. Before the conflict began in late February, Brent traded around $70 per barrel.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell announced Wednesday his intention to remain on the Fed board following the end of his chairmanship next month, citing concerns about Trump administration attacks on central bank independence. “I worry these attacks are battering this institution and putting at risk the things that really matter to the public,” Powell said during a press conference after the Fed maintained current interest rates.

Powell’s decision to stay as a governor until potentially January 2028 prevents Trump from appointing another ally to the seven-member board. The Senate Banking Committee has already approved Trump nominee Kevin Warsh as Powell’s replacement on a party-line vote.

Returning to Thursday’s Senate hearing, Hegseth and Caine will likely face additional scrutiny regarding European troop deployments after President Trump threatened Wednesday to reduce U.S. military presence in Germany during his dispute with Chancellor Friedrich Merz over Iran war strategy.

WASHINGTON — When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed groundbreaking civil rights legislation in August 1965, he understood its historic importance and chose to hold the ceremony at the U.S. Capitol rather than the White House.

The signing took place on August 6, 1965, just five months following the violent confrontation known as “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Alabama, which had galvanized support for what became the Voting Rights Act.

For more than sixty years, this legislation has stood as one of America’s most influential laws, blocking discriminatory practices against minority voters and enabling the election of thousands of Black and Hispanic officials across all government levels.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a devastating blow to the law’s protections on Wednesday, dismantling another crucial component that had safeguarded against racial bias in voting and political representation. This latest ruling follows the court’s 2013 decision that already weakened other essential aspects of the legislation, subsequently triggering restrictive voting measures across multiple states. Civil rights organizations now express deep concern about the future impact on minority communities.

“It means that you have entire communities that can go without having representation,” said Cliff Albright, a co-founder of the group Black Voters Matter. “It is literally throwing us back to the Jim Crow era unapologetically, and that’s not exaggeration.”

Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Washington office, said the court’s steady work to erode the Voting Rights Act, culminating in Wednesday’s decision, amounted to “burying it without the funeral.”

The high court’s decision emerged from a Louisiana congressional redistricting dispute involving a newly drawn district that resulted in the state gaining its second Black congressional representative.

The court determined this map violated constitutional principles because racial considerations influenced the boundary drawing process. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion for the court’s conservative wing, arguing that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was intended solely to prevent deliberate discrimination.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan argued that requiring proof of intentional discrimination creates “an almost insurmountable barrier for challenges to any voting rights issues to prove discrimination.”

Legal experts specializing in voting rights warn this decision reduces the Voting Rights Act to a mere shadow of its former strength and opens pathways for political map-drawers across all levels of government — from school boards to state legislatures to Congress — to weaken minority political influence.

“We’re witnessing the evisceration of America’s greatest legislative landmark at the hands of a far right Supreme Court,” Democratic U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York said.

Maria Teresa Kumar, president of Voto Latino, said the decision will allow more aggressive “cracking and packing” of populations to dilute their votes, “not just in congressional districts but also in state legislatures, county commissions, school boards and city councils.”

The law’s transformative impact over the decades cannot be questioned, according to voting rights specialists.

Sherrilyn Ifill, a law professor at Howard University and the former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, noted that approximately 1,500 Black elected officials served nationwide in 1970, compared to more than 10,000 today.

“And it isn’t because of the goodness of people’s hearts,” she said.

This progress resulted directly from Black communities, civil rights activists and attorneys having legal mechanisms through the Voting Rights Act to challenge attempts to weaken Black and Hispanic voting power. The majority of Section 2 lawsuits have focused on representation in local government positions.

The impact extends beyond mere statistics.

Reduced representation, particularly in state legislatures and Congress, will result in minority communities losing influence on critical issues including healthcare, education and essential infrastructure improvements, according to Sophia Lin Lakin, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project.

“States can now point to partisan objectives to justify maps that strip voters of color of representation, and federal courts will have little basis to intervene,” she said.

Johnson’s historic legislation from 61 years ago underwent various amendments over time, but the most significant change occurred in 2013 with the Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder ruling. That decision effectively eliminated the provision requiring certain states and local jurisdictions to obtain federal approval before implementing voting-related changes.

This 2013 ruling enabled predominantly Republican states to enact numerous restrictive election laws, particularly following former President Donald Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread fraud in his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

In an unexpected 2023 ruling, the Supreme Court had upheld Section 2 in an Alabama redistricting case, but Wednesday’s decision essentially overturned that precedent.

The immediate concern now centers on the consequences for minority representatives and their constituents.

In Louisiana, the ruling places Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields in a precarious position. Fields has experienced redistricting challenges before, serving two terms in the 1990s before the state redrew his congressional district.

“I’ve been down this road before, you know, 33 years ago,” he said.

Shomari Figures, who secured the Alabama seat created following the court’s 2023 decision, explained that while the ruling doesn’t immediately affect Alabama’s current congressional districts, it significantly increases the difficulty of proving future racial discrimination in redistricting cases.

“It will lead to states, primarily in the South, launching immediate efforts to redraw districts in ways that will dilute the impact of Black voters and drastically reduce the number of realistic opportunities to elect Black members to Congress,” he said.

Shalela Dowdy, an Alabama resident who served as a plaintiff in the lawsuit that led to the creation of Figures’ district, expressed concern that the decision could result in rolling back the 2023 district, which provided Black voters with stronger representation.

“Putting it in the hands of the states on this level is dangerous,” Dowdy said. “There’s just been a history of the states not doing the right thing based off their state population.”

Fresh research from the Public Religion Research Institute reveals interesting demographic patterns in American attitudes toward abortion access. The survey discovered that women back legal abortion procedures at higher rates than men, with 63% of women supporting legality in most or all situations versus 59% of men.

Political party affiliation shows expected divisions on the issue, with Democratic voters expressing significantly more support for abortion access compared to Republican respondents. However, the research uncovered a surprising generational trend that defies typical assumptions about age and social issues.

Contrary to what many might expect, older Americans demonstrate stronger backing for maintaining legal abortion than their younger counterparts. The data shows 60% of Americans aged 65 and older favor keeping abortion procedures legal, representing higher support levels than found among younger age groups.

The historic Voting Rights Act of 1965, long considered the cornerstone achievement of America’s civil rights era, has been stripped of its final enforcement power by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts’ leadership, according to legal scholars.

In a Wednesday decision split along ideological lines 6-3, the Court’s conservative justices eliminated what academics describe as the final functioning component of the groundbreaking legislation that emerged from the violent “Bloody Sunday” confrontation in Selma, Alabama, designed to combat racial bias in electoral processes.

UCLA election law scholar Rick Hasen characterized the Roberts Court’s treatment of the Voting Rights Act as resembling “a wrecking ball.” He explained, “There are still parts of the VRA that are operative, but the two main pillars are now virtually dead letters.”

Wednesday’s decision targeted Section 2 of the law, overturning a Louisiana electoral district map that would have created a second congressional seat with a Black majority population. This ruling will significantly complicate efforts by minority communities to contest electoral boundaries they view as racially biased under the civil rights statute.

The timing coincides with approaching November congressional races, where former President Donald Trump’s Republican allies are working to retain their grip on both chambers of Congress. Trump praised the Court’s action and predicted Republican-controlled states would move to redesign their voting districts.

Former Justice Department attorney John Yoo, who worked during the George W. Bush administration, defended the decision as advancing the Court’s effort to guarantee governmental adherence to “a color-blind Constitution.”

Justice Elena Kagan authored a forceful opposition opinion, supported by her two liberal colleagues, describing the ruling as the “latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”

Kagan referenced a 2021 decision where the conservative majority upheld Republican-supported Arizona voting measures that a lower court determined would disproportionately impact Black, Latino and Native American voters.

She also pointed to Roberts’ 2013 opinion in the Shelby County v. Holder case from Alabama, which eliminated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act – a requirement that states and localities with histories of racial discrimination obtain federal permission before altering voting procedures.

Kagan emphasized that Wednesday’s verdict “is part of a set,” adding that “For over a decade, this court has had its sights set on the Voting Rights Act.”

The Voting Rights Act originated following the crucial 1965 demonstration where hundreds of Black marchers attempted to cross Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge and encountered state police who attacked them with nightsticks.

Following the “Bloody Sunday” violence, President Lyndon Johnson urged Congress to enact voting rights protections. Legislators responded with the Voting Rights Act, which eliminated poll taxes, literacy requirements and other discriminatory practices that white officials had used to block Black citizens from voting.

Section 5 of the original law mandated that jurisdictions with discrimination histories receive federal clearance for voting law changes, establishing criteria to determine which areas faced this “preclearance” obligation.

The Supreme Court dismantled these safeguards in 2013 through a 5-4 conservative majority decision supporting Shelby County, Alabama officials. The justices ruled that Congress relied on obsolete information when continuing to require Alabama and eight additional states, primarily in the South, to seek federal permission for changes affecting minority voters.

While the decision allowed Congress to create new criteria for determining preclearance requirements, no such replacement emerged. Section 2 remained intact temporarily.

Congress modified Section 2 in 1982 to ban electoral maps that diminish minority voting influence, regardless of whether discriminatory intent could be proven directly.

For over forty years, plaintiffs could succeed in Section 2 cases by demonstrating that voting maps produced racially discriminatory outcomes under the “results test” standard.

However, Wednesday’s ruling essentially converted Section 2 into an “intent test,” according to legal experts.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Roberts and the four remaining conservative justices. The decision stated that Section 2 analysis must focus on the Constitution’s ban against deliberate racial discrimination found in the 15th Amendment.

Adopted in 1870 after the Civil War that abolished slavery, the 15th Amendment empowers Congress to create laws ensuring voting rights cannot be denied “on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”

Alito wrote that interpreting Section 2 to “outlaw a map solely because it fails to provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create a right that the amendment does not protect.”

Harvard Law Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos declared that Wednesday’s decision renders the results test “effectively dead.”

“It’s there in theory but now impossible to satisfy in fact,” explained Stephanopoulos, who submitted a legal brief supporting the Voting Rights Act in this case.

Press Robinson, a Louisiana resident and activist whose legal challenge initially created the second Black-majority district in his state, warned that the Supreme Court’s decision would impact government at every level nationwide. He expressed concern that elected Black officials would soon “disappear.”

“We’ll be back where we were at the time that slavery was declared illegal in this country,” Robinson told reporters during a conference call. “This country doesn’t seem to want to advance beyond that time.”

A cybersecurity policy organization led by CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is calling for import taxes on digital display components to reduce America’s military dependence on Chinese suppliers for these essential parts.

The Silverado Policy Accelerator released findings Thursday warning that China’s growing dominance in the display manufacturing sector poses serious national security concerns. Defense officials have expressed worry for years about China’s expanding control over display technology, which was previously dominated by American allies like Japan and South Korea.

In 2023, former President Trump enacted legislation requiring the Defense Department to develop a strategy by 2027 to eliminate dependence on China, Russia, and other adversaries for critical technologies.

The policy group’s research examined the supply chain beyond finished displays to focus on individual “cells” – semiconductor-like components that serve as the foundation for display panels. Their investigation revealed that most displays manufactured in nations like Mexico or Thailand depend on cells produced in China.

While premium smartphones sold in America currently utilize Korean-manufactured cells, the report projects that lower-cost Chinese cells could capture up to 75% of worldwide market share by 2028. This trend is already forcing manufacturing facilities in Japan and Taiwan to shut down.

“When we started looking at this, what we saw was another dashboard of flashing red emergency lights,” said Sarah Stewart, a former U.S. trade official who is CEO and executive director of the policy group. “We’ve seen this before in other sectors. We have really dangerous exposure here on some of these critical components that are powering our military, first responders, power plants and literally every piece of critical infrastructure.”

Although courts have overturned many of Trump’s broad-based tariffs, his administration continues developing focused tariffs under specific legal authorities.

The organization’s report suggests that display cells could fall under an existing “Section 301” investigation into unfair trade practices, potentially allowing tariffs on Chinese-made display cells in finished products.

“It gives a lot of flexibility to the executive branch to think about burden or restriction on U.S. commerce in quite a broad way,” Stewart said of the statute.

Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth is scheduled to appear before lawmakers for a second consecutive day of confirmation hearings following contentious discussions about Iran military policy during his initial testimony.

The hearings resume after Hegseth faced sharp questioning from congressional members regarding his positions on potential military action involving Iran, creating tension during what are typically more routine confirmation proceedings.

Meanwhile, attention in Washington also focuses on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s tenure and impact on monetary policy during his leadership of the central bank.

In a separate major development, the Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling that substantially weakens the Voting Rights Act, marking another pivotal decision affecting election law and voter access protections.

China has introduced sweeping new trade regulations this month that have sparked concern among American companies and trade experts, who warn these measures could significantly hamper U.S. efforts to decrease supply chain reliance on China.

The Trump administration’s response has been notably restrained, with U.S. officials avoiding public commentary on China’s latest move.

These regulations, unveiled just weeks before President Donald Trump’s scheduled May 14-15 meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, establish a legal framework for penalizing international companies that attempt to diversify their sourcing away from China.

The Trump administration has consistently encouraged American businesses to “derisk” by reducing their dependence on Chinese goods and regaining “sovereignty” in critical sectors such as essential minerals and pharmaceuticals. China’s new policies effectively pressure U.S. and other international companies in the opposite direction.

A U.S. official, speaking anonymously to Reuters, suggested that China’s timing in releasing these regulations before Trump’s visit to China indicates Beijing is gauging the White House’s commitment to maintaining the current pause in trade hostilities, which began early last year with U.S. tariff increases and Chinese counter-measures.

“It’s a clear attempt to stop derisking,” the official said.

Industry organizations have raised serious concerns about these Chinese regulations. The American Chamber of Commerce in China informed Reuters that China could reduce purchases from international companies with minimal repercussions, while foreign businesses might face scrutiny from Chinese officials for decreasing their dependence.

“Washington’s response so far has been silence. That risks signaling weakness,” said Craig Singleton, a China expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank.

With the summit drawing near, the administration seemed intent on avoiding public escalation, he noted.

White House spokesman Kush Desai avoided directly addressing Reuters’ inquiries about the measures, saying only that the Trump administration “will continue to leverage every bit of America’s economic might to safeguard our national and economic security.”

The Treasury Department and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not provide responses to Reuters’ requests for comment.

The Trump administration’s restraint regarding these new regulations, which many in American industry view as a warning shot, marks a shift from the trade confrontation that preceded Trump’s October meeting with Xi in South Korea.

In Busan, both nations eventually established an unstable trade cease-fire, though Trump had previously threatened to halt all U.S. software exports to China and impose 100% tariffs on Chinese products in response to Chinese restrictions on critical mineral exports.

China’s new policies specify that foreign entities taking actions “such as suspending normal transactions with our nation’s citizens or organizations,” face investigation and penalties.

While the regulations don’t specify particular industries for enforcement, they indicate Chinese agencies will create a “key sectors list” to protect “circulation of raw materials, technology, equipment” and other goods.

These measures could impact numerous companies across various sectors.

American pharmaceutical companies, for instance, have increasingly sought to relocate some manufacturing and sourcing to India and other nations with less geopolitical tension with Washington.

Under China’s new framework, such moves could be viewed as threats to China’s security, potentially resulting in companies facing investment restrictions, import or export prohibitions, and staff being barred from entering the country.

A second round of Chinese regulations released shortly afterward outlines penalties for foreign companies that comply with “unjustified extraterritorial jurisdiction,” Beijing’s description of U.S. sanctions and export restrictions.

Analysts and some U.S. officials express concern about the precedent established by Beijing’s measures.

“Left unaddressed, these new rules will normalize supply chain coercion and accelerate China’s development of other economic weapons to lock in corporate dependence and prevent supply chain shifts out of China,” FDD’s Singleton said.

Two U.S. industry sources informed Reuters that the Trump administration had received briefings from industry groups about the regulations and the new leverage they provide China.

The U.S. officials had been in “listening mode,” but provided no definitive position or objection, according to the sources, who requested anonymity to speak freely about their administration discussions.

“It’s almost like loading the gun without actually firing it,” one industry source described the Chinese rules, adding they believed it was improbable the U.S. would respond before the summit given the administration’s focus on “preserving strategic stability.”

Another U.S. business source noted that recognizing China’s new supply chain regulations would force the Trump administration to retaliate despite limited desire for escalation.

Reva Goujon, geopolitical strategist and director at Rhodium Group, said the measures are so comprehensive that U.S. negotiators could charge Beijing with “violating the spirit of Busan and basically the whole idea of trade and investment reciprocity.”

“China is clearly in a much more emboldened position,” Goujon said.

WASHINGTON — Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth returns to Capitol Hill Thursday for another round of intense questioning from lawmakers, this time appearing before senators who will have their first chance to challenge or support his management of the Iran conflict.

The Defense Secretary endured nearly six hours of heated exchanges with House Armed Services Committee members Wednesday, facing pointed criticism about the war’s financial burden, casualty toll, and impact on America’s weapons reserves.

Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Committee session will focus on the Trump administration’s proposed 2027 defense budget, which seeks a record-breaking $1.5 trillion in military spending. Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine plan to emphasize requirements for additional unmanned aircraft, missile defense capabilities, and naval vessels.

The officials will likely encounter difficult questions regarding U.S. forces stationed in Europe following President Trump’s Wednesday warning to NATO partner Germany, hinting at potential reductions in American military personnel as tensions rise with Chancellor Friedrich Merz over Iran policy.

Based on Wednesday’s proceedings, Republican senators may concentrate on military funding specifics while endorsing the Iranian operation. Democratic members are anticipated to demand clarity on conflict strategy during the current fragile ceasefire and challenge Hegseth’s dismissal of senior military commanders.

Democratic lawmakers characterize the conflict as an expensive optional war lacking proper congressional authorization or oversight. However, Congress has repeatedly failed to enact war powers measures requiring legislative approval for military operations.

Issues that legislators have sought to address since hostilities commenced February 28 received responses — or were dodged — during Wednesday’s session.

Pentagon officials revealed the conflict has consumed $25 billion thus far, primarily for ammunition and weapons. However, Hegseth declined to provide estimates on the war’s duration or potential additional expenses.

The Defense Secretary stated that a fatal attack on an Iranian elementary school resulting in over 165 deaths, including numerous children, remains under review. Associated Press reporting has indicated mounting evidence suggesting U.S. responsibility for the strike against a school located near a Revolutionary Guard facility.

Democratic Representative Pat Ryan questioned Hegseth about whether six American servicemembers killed in a Kuwait drone attack could have been saved. Hegseth avoided directly addressing the inquiry but emphasized military efforts to safeguard U.S. personnel.

During another heated moment, Hegseth informed Democratic Representative Adam Smith that Iranian nuclear installations were destroyed during U.S. attacks last June. This prompted Smith to challenge the Trump administration’s justification for initiating the Iranian war months later.

“We had to start this war, you just said 60 days ago, because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat,” said Smith, the committee’s top Democrat. “Now you’re saying that it was completely obliterated?”

Hegseth replied that Iranian officials “had not given up their nuclear ambitions” and maintained thousands of missiles.

Smith argued the conflict “left us at exactly the same place we were before.”

The Pentagon leader also addressed inquiries about removing Army’s senior uniformed leader, Gen. Randy George, among multiple high-ranking military officials dismissed since Trump’s return to the presidency.

Hegseth cited the need for “new leadership,” an explanation that didn’t satisfy Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. Chrissy Houlahan.

“You have no way of explaining why you fired one of the most decorated and remarkable men,” Houlahan started before Hegseth cut her off. “We needed new leadership,” he reiterated.

African American lawmakers on Capitol Hill are preparing for potentially devastating losses to their congressional representation following a Supreme Court decision that weakened critical voting rights protections for minority communities during redistricting processes.

The Wednesday Supreme Court ruling opens the door for states controlled by Republicans to redesign House districts without considering racial demographics, which could lead to significantly more conservative-leaning congressional seats nationwide.

Congressional Black Caucus Chair Rep. Yvette Clarke addressed media members, stating that caucus representatives and Democratic colleagues would resist the consequences of this judicial decision.

“The Supreme Court has opened the door to a coordinated attack on Black voters across the country,” Clarke stated. “This is an outright power grab.”

Previously, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act allowed voters to contest district maps that seemed to weaken minority communities’ power to choose their preferred candidates. Political experts anticipate that Republican-controlled states will launch widespread congressional redistricting efforts following Wednesday’s decision, particularly targeting the 2028 elections and future cycles, which will likely result in a significantly reduced Black Caucus membership.

More than twelve of the 60 Black Caucus members joined Clarke at the press conference, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Their reactions to the court’s decision varied from anger to determination to grief.

While the exact number of affected seats remains uncertain, redistricting specialists believe that over a dozen seats currently held by minorities could be eliminated.

Louisiana Rep. Troy Carter, one of two African American Democrats representing the state that was central to this case, described the decision as “a devastating blow to our democracy, plain and simple.”

Republican leadership across multiple Southern states has already begun discussing implementation strategies for the ruling to develop new conservative-friendly congressional maps. Florida Republicans quickly moved forward with approving a revised House map that included redrawing a district originally designed to elect African American representation.

“I would be surprised if we do not see former slave-holding states moving at lightning speed to target districts that provide Black voters and other voters of color an equal opportunity to elect candidates,” explained Kristen Clarke, NAACP general counsel and the first African American woman to serve as assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s civil rights division.

She noted uncertainty about whether state voting legislation or constitutional anti-discrimination provisions will offer any safeguards.

Republican officials and conservative African American leaders celebrated the decision as a win against race-based requirements. Project 21 Black Leadership Network’s Linda Lee Tarver released a statement saying civil rights legislation was never meant “to institutionalize racial line-drawing as a default feature of our political system.”

The Congressional Black Caucus originated in 1971 during court-mandated redistricting under the Voting Rights Act, which had been enacted six years prior, resulting in increased minority congressional representation.

African American House representation grew from nine to thirteen members. Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman in Congress, chose to expand the Democracy Select Committee established in the 1960s by Democratic Rep. Charles Diggs into the more structured Congressional Black Caucus.

The CBC gained national attention during its inaugural year by boycotting President Richard Nixon’s State of the Union speech after he declined to meet with the organization. Nixon later agreed to the meeting. The organization developed more than 60 policy recommendations to benefit the African American community, including fighting racism and improving housing access. This earned them recognition as the “conscience of the Congress.”

“That caucus has had such an important voice in American politics — the things that we’ve been able to achieve together, the creation of equity and access,” Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock said during a Wednesday press conference. “And I’m afraid that with this ruling, we could see that caucus shrink in a hugely significant way.”

New Orleans resident Thomas Johnson expressed frustration about the ruling while visiting Louisiana’s Capitol in Baton Rouge. Johnson, who is African American and represented by Carter, worries that Republicans might redesign the state’s congressional boundaries to eliminate predominantly Black districts.

“I feel like this is an embarrassing attack upon the minorities, particularly the Black community,” Johnson said. “We have very little (voice) in Congress.”

Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright, who advises the Black Caucus, predicts the organization will engage in numerous legal battles defending members whose districts face targeting after the Supreme Court ruling. He emphasized that the decision makes voter mobilization efforts even more critical “if we want to change course on some of the things that are likely to happen because of this decision.”

Alabama Democratic Rep. Terri Sewell, whose state was involved in a significant Voting Rights Act case that favored Black representation nearly three years ago, emphasized that the party must now concentrate on energizing voters before this year’s midterm elections.

“Now more than ever, we need communities across this nation to mobilize — in state legislatures, in the courts and at the ballot box,” Sewell said. “We need to vote like we’ve never voted before.”

Louisiana’s Republican Governor Jeff Landry has informed GOP House candidates that he intends to postpone the upcoming primary elections scheduled for May 16, according to a Washington Post report citing sources familiar with the conversations that took place Wednesday.

The governor’s formal announcement regarding the primary suspension could be made as soon as Friday, just one day before early voting was scheduled to begin, according to the report. Reuters was unable to independently confirm these details, and Governor Landry has not yet responded to requests for comment.

This decision comes in response to a 6-3 Supreme Court decision that struck down Louisiana’s electoral map, which would have created a second congressional district with a Black majority. Louisiana’s population is approximately one-third Black, and the state currently has six seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The high court’s decision significantly weakened an important section of the Voting Rights Act, making it more difficult for minority groups to contest electoral maps they believe are racially discriminatory under this historic civil rights legislation.

As the November congressional races approach, this Supreme Court ruling may prompt other Republican-controlled states to attempt redistricting efforts that could threaten House seats currently considered secure for Democrats. Black voters historically tend to support Democratic candidates.

The court’s decision arrives amid ongoing redistricting battles between Republican and Democratic states nationwide, as both parties seek to redraw electoral boundaries for political advantage before the November elections.

Former President Donald Trump and Republican leaders are working to maintain their narrow control of both the House and Senate in the upcoming elections.

WASHINGTON – The House of Representatives passed a budget framework Wednesday that could clear the path for a massive $70 billion increase in immigration enforcement funding over the next three years.

The budget outline, approved by lawmakers, would enable Congress to move forward with deliberating on the significant boost in resources for federal immigration agents and enforcement operations.

The three-year spending plan represents a substantial potential investment in border security and immigration enforcement activities across the country.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that his administration intends to make public extensive information about unidentified flying objects in the coming period.

The president stated that officials plan to disclose as much UFO-related material as they can to the American people.

Federal prosecutors have indicted three members of a Minnesota family for allegedly attacking a conservative media contributor during an anti-immigration enforcement demonstration, court documents revealed Wednesday.

Christopher Ostroushko, his wife DeYanna, and their daughter Paige each face federal assault charges following an April 11 incident involving Turning Point USA writer Savanah Hernandez. Federal prosecutors also charged Christopher and Paige with interfering with federally protected activities.

Additionally, Christopher Ostroushko is facing separate state-level misdemeanor assault charges through the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office.

Defense lawyers for the family stated they plan to vigorously fight the charges, noting that an indictment does not constitute a conviction.

The confrontation occurred during ongoing demonstrations against the Trump administration’s immigration policies near the Twin Cities. Protesters have regularly gathered outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building at Fort Snelling, where Immigration and Customs Enforcement operates a temporary detention facility.

Video evidence recorded by Hernandez on April 11 shows the incident escalating when Paige approached the journalist and blew a whistle directly at her face. Additional footage from different angles captures Hernandez attempting to shield herself and pushing back as the situation intensified.

During the altercation, Hernandez can be heard saying, “Get away from me.”

The video shows Paige shoving Hernandez, causing her to fall backward into a fence.

Subsequently, both parents confronted Hernandez separately, with Paige engaging again in the conflict.

According to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, Christopher Ostroushko “forcefully shoved the victim in the back, head first to the ground.” Prosecutors determined there was not enough evidence to pursue state charges against the other family members.

Bystanders at the scene attempted to calm the situation and separate those involved.

Following the April incident, Hernandez reported on social media that her eyeglasses were damaged, she sustained a concussion along with neck and back pain, and suffered leg abrasions. She indicated she was working with law enforcement to file charges.

Family attorney James Cook argued that circulated videos don’t capture the complete story and expressed confidence in mounting a strong defense.

“We think that there’s a lot of things in the videos that provide a means to exonerate,” he stated.

Cook explained that the Ostroushkos were frequent demonstrators at the federal building, participating to “provide a voice and a demonstration against Metro Surge.” He noted the family has faced online harassment since the incident, and both parents have lost their employment.

“They wish they could turn back the clock,” Cook said. “They wish that things didn’t turn out how they did.”

The family is scheduled to appear before a federal judge on May 12.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche released a statement Wednesday declaring that the Justice Department will consistently “punish unhinged acts of political violence.”

“Hernandez was allegedly surrounded, physically assaulted, and shoved to the ground — simply because she was identified by the defendants as a conservative journalist,” Blanche said. “That is NOT ‘peaceful protest.’”

In response to the charges, Hernandez posted that she was “incredibly grateful to see our justice system at work.” She did not respond to requests for additional comment.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump issued a fresh warning to NATO partner Germany on Wednesday, indicating he may decrease American military forces stationed there amid ongoing tensions with Chancellor Friedrich Merz regarding the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran.

The president’s warning followed Merz’s earlier comments this week claiming Iranian leadership was “humiliating” the United States and condemning Washington’s apparent lack of clear strategy in the conflict. Trump has also consistently criticized NATO members for their unwillingness to support America in the two-month military engagement.

“The United States is studying and reviewing the possible reduction of Troops in Germany, with a determination to be made over the next short period of time,” Trump declared on social media.

Earlier Wednesday, Merz stated his personal ties with Trump continued to be “as good as ever,” though he acknowledged having “had doubts from the very beginning about what was started there with the war in Iran.”

This isn’t Trump’s first attempt to reduce American forces in Germany. During his initial presidency, he previously sought to decrease U.S. troops there, arguing the nation wasn’t spending adequately on its own defense.

In June 2020, Trump revealed plans to withdraw approximately 9,500 of the roughly 34,500 American service members deployed in Germany at that time, though the reduction never began. President Joe Biden officially halted the proposed withdrawal after assuming office in 2021.

Germany hosts multiple significant American military installations, including headquarters for both U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command, along with Ramstein Air Base and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, which serves as the largest U.S. hospital beyond American borders.

Merz visited Trump at the White House in March, shortly after the U.S. and Israel launched their bombing campaign against Iran. During that meeting, Merz expressed Germany’s willingness to collaborate with America on planning for the eventual fall of Iran’s current government. He also voiced concerns that prolonged warfare could severely harm the worldwide economy.

Those worries, shared by numerous European officials, have intensified as the U.S. and Iran remain unable to negotiate the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the vital shipping channel that previously carried roughly 20% of global oil supplies before hostilities commenced on February 28.

“We are suffering considerably in Germany and in Europe from the consequences of, for example, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” Merz stated Wednesday, just hours before Trump posted his warning online. “And in that regard, I urge that this conflict be resolved.”

Merz emphasized that his administration maintained “good speaking terms” with the Trump administration.

Meanwhile, Trump has made little effort to hide his irritation with the German leader.

On Tuesday, he posted: “The Chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about!” Trump continued by saying it came as no surprise “that Germany is doing so poorly, both economically and in other respects!”

Several states wasted no time responding to Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision that severely curtails the consideration of race when creating congressional districts, undermining decades-old civil rights protections that enhanced minority representation in Congress.

The high court’s ruling targeted a predominantly Black congressional district in Louisiana, but its impact is already reverberating across multiple states where officials had been anticipating this exact outcome.

Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature moved within hours of the decision, passing new congressional maps that could deliver the GOP as many as four extra House seats in upcoming elections. Governor Ron DeSantis had strategically scheduled a special legislative session, betting the Supreme Court would rule in his favor.

DeSantis revealed his proposed House map earlier this week, which restructures a southeastern Florida district he claimed was designed specifically to ensure Black representation under federal voting rights law.

“Properly understood, the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government from divvying up the citizenry based in whole or in part upon race,” DeSantis stated in his Monday correspondence to state legislators.

Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2010 that prevents districts from being designed to weaken racial or language minorities’ voting power. However, DeSantis has maintained this amendment conflicts with federal constitutional law.

Ruth Greenwood, who heads Harvard Law School’s Election Law Clinic, cautioned that the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t automatically invalidate state constitutional safeguards against racial discrimination in voting districts.

Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves had already announced plans for a special legislative session to redesign the state’s Supreme Court districts, scheduled to begin three weeks after the federal court ruling. A federal judge previously mandated Mississippi redraw these districts after determining they violated the Voting Rights Act by weakening Black voter influence.

Reeves indicated in his announcement that the Supreme Court’s guidance would help lawmakers understand whether “race-conscious redistricting” contradicts constitutional principles.

Louisiana legislators postponed their primary elections from April to May, expecting to need time to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision on their congressional maps. With early voting beginning Saturday, it remains uncertain whether the Republican-led legislature can modify districts before November’s general election.

House Speaker Phillip DeVillier and Senate President Cameron Henry released a joint statement saying they’re examining the ruling and consulting advisors to “determine next steps to be taken in the best interests of Louisiana voters and our state.” Governor Jeff Landry similarly announced he’s discussing options with legislative leaders.

Alabama faces a complex situation, as a federal court in 2023 mandated creation of a new district with a near-majority Black population, resulting in the election of the state’s second Black House representative. While Alabama must use this map through 2030, a pending Supreme Court appeal challenges it as illegal racial gerrymandering.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall welcomed Wednesday’s Louisiana decision, stating he will “act as quickly as possible to apply this ruling to Alabama’s redistricting efforts and ensure that our congressional maps reflect the will of the people, not a racial quota system the Constitution forbids.”

Governor Kay Ivey noted the state isn’t positioned for an immediate special session, with primaries scheduled for May 19.

In Tennessee, where the legislative session concluded last week, Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn called via social media for lawmakers to reconvene and redraw the state’s sole Democratic congressional district to favor Republicans. This district encompasses Memphis, which has a Black majority population.

Tennessee’s Republican legislative leaders acknowledged discussing redistricting possibilities, though Senate Speaker Randy McNally highlighted logistical hurdles since candidate filing deadlines have passed and the primary approaches in August.

“With the filing deadline passed and qualified candidates already running for election, redistricting congressional seats at this time would present several logistical challenges,” McNally explained.

Illinois Democrats, anticipating the Supreme Court might weaken voting rights protections, approved a proposed state constitutional amendment last week that would safeguard race-based redistricting. The measure prioritizes creating districts where voters can elect representatives of their choice “on account of race,” ranking minority-majority districts above geographical considerations.

However, Senate President Don Harmon announced Wednesday the amendment won’t advance this session, allowing legal experts time to analyze the court’s decision.

“The last thing we want is to act in haste and risk unintended consequences down the road,” he stated. “Too much is at stake for too many.”

Defense Department leaders disclosed to lawmakers that military operations against Iran have reached an estimated price tag of $25 billion during budget hearings on Capitol Hill.

Pentagon officials made the financial revelation while testifying before Congress about defense spending priorities and budget allocations.

WASHINGTON — In a 235-191 vote, the House passed legislation Wednesday extending a controversial U.S. surveillance program for three years, just days before it’s set to expire on Friday. The measure includes additional oversight provisions but falls short of requiring warrants that privacy advocates have pushed for.

Most Republicans were joined by a significant number of Democrats in supporting the extension. However, the legislation’s future remains unclear as it awaits action from the Senate and President Donald Trump.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated Wednesday evening that his chamber probably won’t quickly approve the House version, suggesting a temporary extension will be necessary to avoid Friday’s expiration deadline.

The House vote represented a victory for Republican leadership after Speaker Mike Johnson spent the day winning over several GOP holdouts to move the measure to a final vote. Previous attempts to pass a long-term extension had failed after chaotic late-night sessions earlier this month.

“Two-thirds of the president’s daily national security briefing comes from intelligence collected by that statute,” Johnson said about the program. “We cannot allow it to go dark.”

At the heart of the controversy is a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that permits the CIA, NSA, FBI and other intelligence agencies to gather and examine communications from foreign subjects without obtaining warrants. This process can inadvertently capture communications involving Americans who communicate with those foreign targets, which many legislators view as problematic.

“The intel community always just comes in and says, ‘People will die if you do this,’” Republican Rep. Chip Roy said Tuesday, advocating for warrant requirements. “Well, I’m sorry. A lot of Americans died to give us and protect that Fourth Amendment right that we don’t have government looking at our stuff.”

Rather than including warrant requirements, the House legislation establishes new oversight mechanisms. These include monthly civil liberties reviews of searches involving U.S. citizens by an official from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, with violations reported to the Intelligence Community’s inspector general.

Additional provisions would establish criminal penalties for officials who deliberately abuse the system or falsify compliance records, mandate a government audit of targeting procedures, and create new protocols to give Congress greater access to FISA court proceedings.

House Democrats criticized the extension during floor debate before Wednesday evening’s vote. Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called the measure a “three-year blank check” that comes “without any meaningful guardrails.”

“Under this bill, FBI agents will still collect, search and review Americans’ communications without any review from a judge,” Raskin stated.

However, Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, supported the extension, describing the program as “without question, the most important foreign intelligence tool.” Himes, who voted for the measure, said the legislation makes oversight of the program “marginally and modestly stronger.”

While Thune said he has maintained contact with Johnson throughout the process, the next steps remain unclear even if the House passes the bill.

“We’re probably going to end up doing a short term,” Thune told reporters following the House vote.

A complicating factor is that House Republicans have tied the surveillance renewal to separate legislation that would prohibit a central bank digital currency — a proposal Thune has described as “very, very hard to pass” in the Senate.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, who has long advocated for FISA reforms, characterized the House deal as “deeply flawed,” though he declined to specify whether he would back an extension.

Thune suggested Wednesday that another temporary extension might be needed while lawmakers work out final details. He indicated a 60-day extension “could be a landing spot.”

WASHINGTON — Historic preservation advocates appeared in federal court Wednesday asking a judge to stop President Donald Trump’s proposed major construction work at the Kennedy Center, Washington’s renowned performing arts complex that has undergone significant changes since Trump returned to the presidency.

The coalition of cultural and preservation organizations wants U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to grant a preliminary injunction stopping all construction before the planned July 6 beginning date. They express concern that Trump and the center’s board of trustees may ignore historic preservation regulations designed to protect the building that welcomes millions of annual visitors.

Following Wednesday’s court session, attorney Greg Werkheiser explained that the governing statutes address “the very fundamental question of: Do we slow down and take stock before we make changes to properties that define the American experience?”

Federal prosecutors defending the president and board contended Wednesday that the proposed building modifications are narrow in scope and fall clearly within the board’s existing powers, requiring no additional governmental approvals.

Trump has focused considerable attention on the Kennedy Center since resuming the presidency. He removed the facility’s former management team and installed his own chosen board members, who subsequently appointed him as chairman. These leadership changes sparked significant criticism from the arts community and worsened the center’s budget problems. Trump’s name was subsequently added to the building’s exterior, and he revealed the renovation plans earlier this year.

Beyond serving as a top-tier arts and cultural institution, the Kennedy Center functions as a “living monument” honoring President John F. Kennedy, who secured funding for the project’s construction but was killed before its completion. Located along the Potomac River, the enormous building with its distinctive white marble exterior has become an iconic feature of Washington’s skyline.

This marks the second consecutive day of legal proceedings concerning the Kennedy Center’s future. Representative Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat, has filed a separate lawsuit seeking to prevent the renovations in her capacity as an ex officio board member. Judge Cooper is presiding over both cases. For the second straight day, the judge’s balanced questioning of both legal teams made it challenging to predict his eventual decision.

During his testimony, executive director Matt Floca, a former facilities manager promoted by the Trump-appointed board, described the planned work as necessary maintenance to address years of deterioration, including significant water damage to a section of the building staff dubbed “the swamp.”

“The most efficient and effective way to complete the magnitude of projects we need to complete is to close the center,” Floca testified.

Lawyers representing the preservation groups questioned whether the project scope is truly limited, citing Trump’s public comments about plans to “fully expose” the building’s steel framework.

Yaakov Roth, the Justice Department lawyer defending the president, dismissed these concerns as excessive.

“There’s no risk that there will be unilateral changes … that we’ll wake up and the building will be gone,” Roth argued.

The Kennedy Center legal battles reflect broader disputes over Trump’s initiatives to make permanent changes to Washington’s landscape. Since taking office, the former New York real estate developer has frustrated preservationists by renovating the White House’s historic Rose Garden. Last October, the administration demolished the White House’s East Wing to construct a $400 million ballroom.

In addition to the Kennedy Center, Trump has also placed his name on the United States Institute of Peace building. The president is also pursuing plans for constructing a 250-foot “triumphal arch.”

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to extend a controversial U.S. surveillance program for three more years, passing the measure 235-191 despite ongoing concerns about privacy protections.

The legislation received support from most Republicans and a significant number of Democrats, though its future remains unclear as it heads to the Senate. The program is set to expire Friday, creating pressure for quick action.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated Wednesday evening that the upper chamber likely won’t fast-track the House version, suggesting a temporary extension may be needed to meet the Friday deadline.

The House vote marked a victory for Republican leadership after Speaker Mike Johnson worked throughout the day to win over GOP holdouts who had previously blocked the legislation. Earlier attempts this month to renew the surveillance authority had failed on the House floor.

“Two-thirds of the president’s daily national security briefing comes from intelligence collected by that statute,” Johnson stated regarding the program. “We cannot allow it to go dark.”

The controversy revolves around a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that permits intelligence agencies including the CIA, NSA, and FBI to gather and examine communications from foreign subjects without obtaining warrants. During this process, the agencies sometimes inadvertently collect communications involving Americans who communicate with foreign targets, which many legislators find problematic.

“The intel community always just comes in and says, ‘People will die if you do this,’” stated Republican Representative Chip Roy on Tuesday while advocating for warrant requirements. “Well, I’m sorry. A lot of Americans died to give us and protect that Fourth Amendment right that we don’t have government looking at our stuff.”

Rather than including warrant requirements, the House measure establishes new oversight mechanisms. These include monthly civil liberties reviews of searches involving U.S. citizens by an official from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, with any violations being reported to the Intelligence Community’s inspector general.

The legislation would also establish criminal penalties for officials who deliberately abuse the system or falsify compliance records, mandate a government audit of targeting procedures, and require new protocols to give Congress greater access to FISA court proceedings.

House Democrats voiced strong opposition to the extension during floor debate before Wednesday’s vote. Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, criticized the measure as a “three-year blank check” that arrives “without any meaningful guardrails.”

“Under this bill, FBI agents will still collect, search and review Americans’ communications without any review from a judge,” Raskin argued.

Representative Jim Himes, the leading Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, defended the extension, describing the program as “without question, the most important foreign intelligence tool.” Himes, who supported the extension, said the legislation makes protective measures “marginally and modestly stronger.”

While Thune reported staying in communication with Johnson throughout the process, the bill’s next steps remain unclear even if it passes the House.

“We’re probably going to end up doing a short term,” Thune informed reporters following the House vote.

One complication involves House Republicans connecting the surveillance renewal with separate legislation that would prohibit a central bank digital currency — a proposal Thune described as “very, very hard to pass” in the Senate.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, who has long pushed for FISA reforms, called the House agreement “deeply flawed,” though he wouldn’t specify whether he would back an extension.

Thune suggested Wednesday that another temporary extension might be necessary while lawmakers work out final details. He indicated a 60-day extension “could be a landing spot.”

The nation’s highest court indicated during oral arguments that it may be inclined to terminate Temporary Protected Status protections for certain immigrant populations, a move that could impact thousands of people currently residing in the United States.

The Supreme Court justices heard arguments regarding the humanitarian program that shields migrants from deportation when conditions in their home countries are deemed unsafe due to armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary circumstances.

TPS provides temporary relief from removal proceedings and work authorization for eligible nationals whose countries face ongoing crises that prevent safe return. The program currently covers individuals from multiple nations experiencing various forms of instability.

Legal experts monitoring the proceedings noted the justices’ questioning suggested skepticism about continuing certain designations under the program. The court’s eventual ruling could significantly alter immigration policy and affect the legal status of numerous individuals who have built lives in American communities.

Immigration advocates have argued that ending TPS protections would force people to return to dangerous conditions, while opponents contend the temporary nature of the program should be enforced more strictly.

A final decision from the Supreme Court is expected in the coming months, with potential implications for immigration enforcement nationwide.

WASHINGTON – The White House confirmed Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s administration is conducting an assessment of American military personnel stationed in Germany, with the possibility of reducing troop numbers under consideration.

Speaking on the matter, Trump indicated that his team would reach a conclusion on potential changes to the military presence soon.

The announcement comes as part of ongoing evaluations of U.S. military deployments overseas.

WASHINGTON — Federal officials announced sweeping changes to firearms regulations Wednesday, marking a significant policy shift favored by Second Amendment advocates within President Donald Trump’s political coalition.

The timing drew sharp criticism from gun safety advocates, coming just days after authorities reported an armed individual attempted to breach security at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner with intentions to harm the Republican president.

The comprehensive package includes more than 30 regulatory modifications, with the most notable being plans to eliminate a 2024 Biden-era requirement that would have mandated thousands of additional gun dealers nationwide to conduct background screenings for purchasers at gun shows and other venues beyond traditional storefronts.

The previous regulation targeted what critics termed the “gun show loophole,” which permitted unlicensed sellers to complete firearm transactions without verifying whether buyers were legally barred from gun ownership. Second Amendment organizations and GOP-controlled states had mounted legal challenges against the requirement, claiming it infringed on constitutional rights and exceeded Biden’s executive authority.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche described the regulatory overhaul as the “most comprehensive regulatory reform package in the history” of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Blanche explained the modifications align gun rules with Supreme Court decisions while reducing administrative obstacles for firearms retailers and legal gun purchasers.

“For too long, regulations were written without any real understanding of how firearms businesses operate, how lawful gun owners handle their firearms, or what truly improves public safety,” Blanche said.

Anti-gun violence organizations criticized the administration for prioritizing gun rights supporters through relaxed rules they believe will compromise national security.

“Four days after the nation watched gunfire break out at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the Trump administration’s answer is to gut commonsense gun safety laws and sabotage the only federal agency dedicated to keeping guns out of criminal hands,” John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, said in a statement.

The regulatory changes received approval shortly after the U.S. Senate confirmed Robert Cekada, a veteran law enforcement professional, to head the ATF, the federal bureau tasked with enforcing America’s firearm statutes. Cekada, an ATF employee since 2005, has overseen the agency’s daily functions as deputy director for the past year.

Cekada becomes just the third confirmed director since Congress made the position subject to Senate approval in 2006. The bureau has predominantly operated under interim leadership, as both Republican and Democratic presidents have struggled to navigate the politically challenging confirmation process for ATF nominees.

While conservatives have historically criticized the ATF for its regulatory enforcement role, Trump’s Justice Department has emphasized the agency’s contributions to removing illegal weapons from communities and combating violent criminal activity.

“Rob is exactly the right person to lead the ATF at this moment,” Blanche said.