Category: Politics

An immigration detention facility in Florida that has earned the infamous moniker ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ could be shutting its doors in the coming period. Officials indicate that the high costs associated with running the facility are driving the potential closure decision.

Louisiana’s Republican-controlled legislature is moving forward with plans to eliminate at least one majority-Black congressional district, sparking intense opposition and emotional testimony from civil rights advocates.

The effort follows a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that weakened voting rights protections, giving GOP lawmakers the opportunity to redraw congressional boundaries that could eliminate one or both of the state’s Democratic-held districts where Black voters hold the majority.

During a contentious eight-hour hearing at the state capitol in Baton Rouge on Friday, Leona Tate, one of the “New Orleans Four” who helped desegregate Southern public schools as a child, delivered powerful testimony against the redistricting proposal.

“I need you to understand what it feels like to stand here, to have walked through that mob as a child, and to now watch elected officials do the same thing that mob was trying to do – just with better suits and a parliamentary procedure,” Tate addressed the senate committee.

The hearing grew heated as protesters gathered outside the chamber, at one point chanting “Let him speak!” after Republican committee Chairman Caleb Kleinpeter shut off a Democratic colleague’s microphone during a heated exchange. Security personnel prevented Mike McClanahan, head of Louisiana’s NAACP chapter, from entering the hearing room.

The redistricting battle has created electoral turmoil across Louisiana. Governor Jeff Landry canceled the May 16 U.S. House primary elections just one day after the Supreme Court decision, despite thousands of absentee ballots already being distributed to voters.

Early voters this week discovered notices posted on polling station doors informing them that House races had been suspended while other elections continued as scheduled. Officials have not clarified what will happen to votes already submitted or when new primaries might take place.

“The truth of the matter is the Supreme Court came down and said that the maps are unconstitutional,” Kleinpeter explained to reporters following the hearing. “So we’re going forward with drawing new maps.”

Black voters comprise approximately one-third of Louisiana’s electorate and predominantly support Democratic candidates. Republicans currently hold four of the state’s six congressional seats.

The Louisiana controversy represents part of a broader national redistricting battle affecting multiple Southern states including Tennessee, Alabama, and South Carolina, where Republican officials are pursuing similar efforts to reduce Black voting power following the Supreme Court ruling.

Voting rights organizations have filed lawsuits challenging Landry’s decision to suspend the elections, arguing it creates widespread voter confusion.

“Folks are unsure of what is happening with these ballots, what elections are or are not happening,” explained Sarah Whittington from the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana. “Invalidating a single part of a ballot and alleging that the rest of it is valid, I think, just undermines the entire faith in the system.”

Democratic Representative Cleo Fields, whose district was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, warned that the redistricting effort could expand beyond congressional races.

“This is about congressional elections today; tomorrow, it’ll be state legislatures, it’ll be city council, it’ll be school boards,” Fields said.

During Friday’s proceedings, civil rights leaders drew parallels to historical discrimination, with Fields noting the limited Black representation in Congress from Louisiana.

“Since Reconstruction, Louisiana has elected four African Americans to Congress – and you’re looking at all of them,” Fields stated, sitting with current Representative Troy Carter and former Representatives Cedric Richmond and William Jefferson.

Republican state Senator Jay Morris presented several redistricting proposals, including options that could result in Republicans winning five or all six of the state’s House seats.

“Neither race nor party affiliation nor voting patterns were considered when this was prepared,” Morris claimed regarding his most aggressive redistricting plan. However, Democratic senators and activists argued these maps would significantly diminish Black political representation.

Tate issued a direct challenge to lawmakers during her testimony: “You have a choice in front of you. You can draw a map that reflects who Louisiana actually is: a state where Black voices belong in the halls of Congress. Or you can draw a map that tells my grandchildren, ‘Your voices don’t count.’”

Baptist pastor Brandon Boutin warned Republican lawmakers they would face consequences for proceeding with the redistricting effort.

“This redistricting issue is not just about lines on a map,” Boutin testified. “It’s about whether democracy is sacred. It’s about whether every citizen has equal value in the eyes of the law.”

Political boundary lines across America are being redrawn at a rapid pace this week through court decisions and legislative actions, with the majority of these modifications anticipated to help Republicans maintain their grip on Congress during November’s voting.

The most significant developments occurred in Southern states, stemming from an important Virginia state court decision and ongoing consequences from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued last month.

Virginia’s Supreme Court delivered a narrow 4-3 ruling on Friday that overturned a Democratic congressional redistricting plan that voters had endorsed in April.

The rejected map would have positioned Democrats to potentially capture 10 of Virginia’s 11 House seats — a substantial increase from their current six seats. These boundary adjustments were part of both parties’ efforts to redraw districts favorably before the 2026 midterm elections.

The court’s majority pointed to procedural violations when dismissing the constitutional amendment that enabled the new maps. Constitutional amendments require lawmakers to approve them twice — before and after a legislative election. The court determined this requirement wasn’t met because the first approval occurred in October after early voting for the general election had already started.

Consequently, Virginia’s existing district maps will stay in effect for this year’s elections.

Several Republican-led Southern states moved this week to redesign their congressional boundaries following the April 29 U.S. Supreme Court decision that invalidated a Louisiana congressional district created with a Black majority population.

This Supreme Court decision was viewed as damaging to a Voting Rights Act provision that mandates political maps include districts where minority communities’ preferred candidates have winning opportunities.

Louisiana immediately postponed its May 16 primaries to allow legislators time to develop new districts. Voting rights advocates filled the state capitol to resist proposals for new maps that might eliminate one of the two existing majority-Black districts.

Alabama Republicans passed legislation Friday that would disregard their May 19 congressional primary results and conduct a new election instead — contingent on a federal court agreeing to remove an order requiring the state to establish a second congressional district with a Black majority or near-majority population. Republicans presently control four of Alabama’s six House seats and prefer using a map that could help them secure an additional seat.

South Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature convened Friday to consider a proposal for a new map giving the party an opportunity to win all seven of the state’s House seats. However, some expressed concerns that dismantling the sole Democratic-held district might make other districts susceptible to Democratic victories.

Tennessee approved legislation Thursday establishing a new House map that divides a majority-Black House district in Memphis, currently the only seat held by a Democrat. This change would provide Republicans a strong opportunity to capture all nine of the state’s seats.

Typically, House districts undergo revision only after results from the ten-year U.S. Census are completed.

This situation represents a departure from normal practice.

President Donald Trump encouraged Texas officials to create new districts to improve his chances of maintaining Republican Congressional control following the 2026 midterm elections. Texas officials responded with a plan designed to deliver up to five additional seats.

Democratic-controlled California countered with a map aimed at gaining five new seats for their party. Additional states have implemented similar strategies. Following the Supreme Court decision, the tempo has intensified, though primarily in states where Republicans already hold nearly all seats, limiting potential gains.

Excluding the potential map modifications in Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina, the mid-decade redistricting has generated 14 additional House seats that Republicans expect to win and six that could favor Democrats. This would create a potential eight-seat Republican advantage heading into a midterm election, when the president’s party typically loses seats.

However, as modifications and legal challenges continue — along with voter input — the outcomes remain uncertain.

Republicans currently hold 217 House seats compared to Democrats’ 212. One independent member serves, with five seats currently vacant.

Federal officials and the nonprofit organization managing Washington DC’s public golf facilities announced a new partnership agreement on Friday, resolving uncertainty over the future of the capital’s three municipal courses.

According to a joint announcement released Friday, National Links Trust will secure extended lease agreements to manage and improve both Langston Golf Course and Rock Creek Park Golf Course moving forward.

The arrangement also addresses East Potomac Golf Links, where National Links Trust will maintain temporary operations while the National Park Service prepares for what officials describe as a “historic restoration” of the waterfront facility.

Officials confirmed that golfers will continue to have access to all three Washington DC public courses throughout the transition period.

The new partnership comes after the Trump administration terminated National Links Trust’s previous management contract in December of last year.

Some observers viewed that earlier cancellation as part of broader efforts by the Trump administration to transform various aspects of the nation’s capital city.

Federal lawmakers are preparing to vote on groundbreaking cryptocurrency legislation next week that could reshape how digital assets are regulated across the United States.

The Senate Banking Committee will meet May 14 at 10:30 a.m. in Washington D.C. to review the Clarity Act, according to Committee Chairman Tim Scott. The proposed law would establish clear regulatory boundaries for the expanding cryptocurrency market and could resolve ongoing tensions between digital asset firms and traditional financial institutions.

If enacted, the legislation would determine which federal agencies oversee different aspects of the crypto industry and specify whether various digital tokens qualify as securities, commodities, or other asset types. This classification system would provide much-needed legal certainty for companies operating in the space.

A key component of the bill addresses a contentious issue between cryptocurrency platforms and banks regarding stablecoins – digital tokens backed by the U.S. dollar. The compromise, negotiated by Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Angela Alsobrooks, would ban customer rewards on inactive stablecoin holdings due to their similarity to traditional bank deposits. However, rewards tied to active stablecoin transactions, like payment processing, would remain legal.

Banking organizations oppose this arrangement, arguing it provides cryptocurrency firms excessive freedom and could draw deposits away from the regulated banking sector. Industry representatives have intensified lobbying efforts targeting Republican committee members ahead of the scheduled vote.

Traditional financial institutions want the Clarity Act to address what they call a regulatory gap from previous legislation that permits intermediaries to offer interest payments on stablecoins. Banks warn this could trigger a mass exodus of deposits from federally insured institutions, potentially undermining financial stability.

Cryptocurrency advocates counter that blocking third-party platforms like exchanges from providing stablecoin interest would stifle competition.

The digital asset sector hopes Congress will approve the Clarity Act before November’s midterm elections, when Democrats might regain control of the House. While the House approved its version of the bill in July 2023, the Senate must pass the legislation by late 2026 to send it to President Trump.

Many Democratic lawmakers have criticized the proposal as insufficient regarding anti-money laundering requirements and believe it should include stronger measures preventing political figures from profiting through cryptocurrency investments. The bill would require support from at least seven Senate Democrats to advance.

President Trump actively courted cryptocurrency industry support during his campaign, promising to serve as a “crypto president.” His family’s involvement in digital asset projects has helped bring the sector into mainstream political discourse.

A Delaware federal court has rejected a defamation case brought by a former Trump supporter against Fox News, marking the second dismissal of his claims that the network destroyed his life with false conspiracy theories.

Raymond Epps, who served as a Marine, sued Fox News after the network incorrectly portrayed him as a federal agent who instigated violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, to frame Trump supporters. The harassment that followed Fox’s coverage became so severe that Epps and his wife were forced to sell their Arizona property and live in an RV, according to court documents.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Hall ruled on Friday that Fox’s request to dismiss should be granted, determining that Epps had not provided sufficient proof that the network deliberately spread information they knew to be untrue.

This marks the second time Hall has thrown out the case in 2024, though she had previously allowed Epps an opportunity to refile his complaint. Her latest decision concluded that his revised filing still did not meet the legal standard.

The lawsuit specifically targeted former Fox host Tucker Carlson, who lost his job at the network in April 2023, as the primary person pushing the unfounded theory. During his tenure hosting Fox’s highest-rated program, Carlson featured Epps in over twenty segments, the court filing stated.

“In the aftermath of the events of January 6th, Fox News searched for a scapegoat to blame other than Donald Trump or the Republican Party,” lawyers for Epps wrote in their lawsuit. “Eventually, they turned on one of their own.”

Epps admitted guilt to a misdemeanor offense connected to the January 6 events and received one year of probation as his sentence. He later received a presidential pardon from Trump, who granted clemency to approximately 1,500 individuals involved in the Capitol incident.

Government prosecutors have supported Epps’ strong denials about being a federal informant or undercover operative. According to federal authorities, Epps has never worked for any government agency except for his military service in the Marines between 1979 and 1983.

A Utah judge has decided to keep television cameras rolling during court proceedings for the man charged with murdering conservative activist Charlie Kirk, while agreeing to push back a crucial hearing.

District Court Judge Tony Graf on Friday turned down Tyler Robinson’s legal team’s request to eliminate live television broadcasts and photography from the courtroom. The judge stated that streaming video provides the greatest public transparency for court proceedings and ensures accountability within the judicial system. Graf noted the court has implemented safeguards to protect potential jurors from bias, including keeping Robinson’s restraints out of camera view.

Robinson’s defense attorneys had contended that live courtroom broadcasts were generating biased and sensationalized news reports that might influence prospective jurors in the aggravated murder case.

Erika Kirk, the victim’s widow, along with news organizations and prosecuting attorneys, pushed for continued camera access during hearings. They maintained this approach would best combat false information and conspiracy theories circulating about the case.

Judge Graf did approve the defense’s motion to reschedule a preliminary hearing from mid-May to July 6-10. During this hearing, prosecutors must demonstrate adequate evidence for Graf to determine whether a crime occurred and if proceeding to trial is warranted. Robinson’s attorneys explained they required additional time to analyze data files that allegedly contain Robinson’s DNA evidence on the weapon used to kill Kirk, along with other crucial evidence. The court’s next session is scheduled for May 19.

If convicted of Kirk’s September 10 killing, prosecutors plan to pursue capital punishment for Robinson.

The 23-year-old defendant was pursuing electrician training when the shooting occurred. Authorities allege he discharged a single shot from a building rooftop that fatally wounded Kirk while the activist was engaging in debate with students at Utah Valley University in Orem.

Kirk had gained recognition for encouraging young voter participation that contributed to President Donald Trump’s 2024 electoral victory. His public assassination before thousands of witnesses represented a disturbing example of escalating political violence across America.

Virginia’s highest court delivered a significant blow to Democrats on Friday, invalidating their congressional redistricting effort that had been approved by voters earlier this year.

In a narrow 4-3 decision, the Virginia Supreme Court determined that the Democratic-controlled legislature failed to follow proper procedures when they put the constitutional amendment before voters. Although the amendment passed by a slim margin on April 21, the court’s decision nullifies that electoral outcome.

Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, speaking for the majority, stated the legislature presented the proposed constitutional amendment to voters “in an unprecedented manner.”

“This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void,” Kelsey explained in his written opinion.

The invalidated redistricting plan could have potentially secured up to four additional U.S. House seats for Democrats in Virginia, which party leaders viewed as crucial for countering Republican redistricting victories elsewhere.

This decision, along with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, has strengthened Republican advantages in congressional redistricting as the midterm elections approach.

Former President Trump celebrated the outcome on his social media platform, calling it a “Huge win for the Republican Party, and America, in Virginia.”

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Richard Hudson characterized the ruling as evidence of growing GOP momentum before the midterms.

“We’re on offense, and we’re going to win,” Hudson declared in his statement.

Virginia House of Delegates Speaker Don Scott, a Democrat, acknowledged his party’s acceptance of the court’s decision while expressing disappointment that it overruled voter preferences: “They voted YES because they wanted to fight back against the Trump power grab.”

The Virginia case represents part of an unusual wave of mid-decade redistricting efforts that began when Trump endorsed Republican redistricting initiatives in Texas last year.

This trend has spread nationwide, with California implementing new voter-approved districts favoring Democrats, while Utah’s supreme court mandated a congressional map that also benefits Democratic candidates. Conversely, Republicans have gained advantages through new House district maps in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee. Additional Republican gains may emerge following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Voting Rights Act decision, which has encouraged other Republican-led states to consider map revisions before this year’s elections.

Republicans have scored a major victory in Virginia’s contentious map-drawing dispute after the state’s highest court ruled against Democratic efforts in the redistricting fight.

The Virginia Supreme Court’s decision represents a significant setback for Democrats who have been battling Republicans over how electoral boundaries should be redrawn in the state.

The ruling marks the latest development in the ongoing redistricting conflict that has pitted the two major political parties against each other as they fight for control over the map-drawing process.

NEW YORK — ABC has submitted a forceful legal response to federal regulators, claiming the Trump administration is attempting to suppress constitutionally protected speech and obstruct open political debate.

At the center of the controversy is the morning talk show ‘The View’ and questions about whether it must comply with equal time broadcasting regulations.

The network’s submission to the Federal Communications Commission, released publicly on Friday, stems from a disagreement involving ABC’s Houston affiliate, KTRK-TV. However, the language suggests the network is preparing for a wider confrontation with the administration.

‘The Commission’s actions threaten to upend decades of settled law and practice and chill critical protected speech, both with respect to The View and more broadly,’ the document stated on behalf of both KTRK-TV and ABC.

The FCC responded through a statement sent to The Associated Press, saying equal time regulations ‘encourage more speech and empower voters to decide the outcome of elections. The FCC will review Disney’s assertion that ‘The View’ is a ‘bona fide news program’ and thus exempt from the political equal time rules.’

This filing represents another clash in the ongoing tensions between American news media and the Trump White House regarding what reporters view as presidential attacks on press freedom and journalism. Trump has consistently criticized news organizations whose coverage conflicts with his policies and preferences.

Current court battles include conflicts between the Pentagon and The New York Times regarding access rights, disagreements between the White House and The Associated Press about Gulf of Mexico terminology, and Trump’s criticism of The Wall Street Journal’s Jeffrey Epstein coverage.

The controversy involves material broadcast on ‘The View,’ ABC’s established morning program that blends entertainment with political interviews and frequently includes commentary opposing Trump. The filing referenced the FCC’s renewed examination of whether ‘The View’ should be governed by equal time requirements, which mandate providing equivalent airtime to rival political candidates.

News programming receives exemptions from these regulations. Trump’s FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, has signaled his intention to challenge ‘The View’s’ classification as a legitimate news program. This determination could impact other shows that similarly mix entertainment with political content.

ABC contended in its filing that ”The View’ has been broadcasting under a bona fide news exemption granted to it more than twenty years ago, consistent with longstanding Commission interpretations designed to minimize the serious First Amendment problems inherent in the equal time regime.’

The network further maintained that the decades-old equal time doctrine fails to reflect current media consumption patterns, noting that ‘the broadcast airwaves account for a slice of the numerous media options through which Americans get their political information. Indeed, the marketplace of ideas has never been more robust, and people can hear virtually any brand of political commentary by listening to a podcast, watching cable, scrolling social media, or streaming on a phone, computer or connected TV. The free flow of ideas flourishes on these non-broadcast platforms even though the equal opportunities rule does not apply there.’

Restricting the FCC’s established approach to news exemptions, the network argued, ‘would risk restricting political discourse exactly when it is needed most.’

The administration’s objections to ‘The View’ mirror its dissatisfaction with late-night television hosts who mock Trump, particularly ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel.

Both Donald and Melania Trump recently demanded ABC terminate Kimmel following a joke where the comedian characterized the first lady as having ‘the glow of an expectant widow.’

This joke aired two evenings prior to the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, which ended abruptly when an armed individual attempted to breach the Washington venue where the Trumps were present alongside much of the nation’s political leadership and Washington press corps. Kimmel explained the joke was a lighthearted reference to the couple’s age gap and definitely not an assassination reference.

In a footnote, ABC emphasized that ‘The View’ has historically featured a diverse panel of women discussing current events.

‘Although the lineup of the co-hosts has changed over the years, ‘The View’ has consistently prioritized having a panel of women from different backgrounds in order to facilitate interesting discourse and the exchange of divergent perspectives,’ the filing stated.

The Biden administration is reportedly weighing the appointment of Kyle Diamantas, currently the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner overseeing food operations, to serve as interim leader of the federal agency, according to three individuals with knowledge of the deliberations.

This potential move comes as the White House has already approved plans to dismiss current FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, as Reuters reported earlier Friday. The Wall Street Journal was first to break this development.

Sources indicate that several candidates are under consideration for the permanent position leading the agency. Among those being evaluated are Stephen Hahn, who previously served as FDA commissioner, and Brett Giroir, who held roles as both acting commissioner and assistant Health Secretary.

The leadership shake-up at the Food and Drug Administration represents a significant change for the federal agency responsible for regulating food safety, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices across the United States.

The Trump administration is directing managers of national parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas across the country to significantly reduce hunting limitations, sparking concerns about public safety and wildlife conservation.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum signed a directive in January instructing federal agencies to eliminate what he called “unnecessary regulatory or administrative barriers” to hunting and fishing activities, while requiring justification for any restrictions they wish to maintain.

“Expanding opportunities for the public to hunt and fish on Department-managed lands not only strengthens conservation outcomes, but also supports rural economies, public health, and access to America’s outdoor spaces,” Burgum wrote. “The Department’s policy is clear: public and federally managed lands should be open to hunting and fishing unless a specific, documented, and legally supported exception applies.”

The directive affects 55 locations in the continental United States overseen by the National Park Service, according to the National Parks Conservation Association. Site administrators have already removed bans on tree stands that harm vegetation, dog training for hunting, using motorized vehicles to transport harvested animals, and hunting near recreational trails, based on an NPCA analysis of updated site rules conducted after the organization learned about the order.

Specific changes include extending the hunting period at Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts into spring and summer months. At Lake Meredith National Recreation Area in Texas, hunters would be permitted to process their harvested animals in public restrooms. Meanwhile, alligator hunting would become permissible at Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in Louisiana.

The directive comes amid a continued decrease in hunting participation as the nation becomes more urbanized. Federal data from the Fish and Wildlife Service and Census Bureau shows only approximately 4.2% of Americans over age 16 identified as hunters in 2024, reducing funding for state wildlife departments that depend on license fees and taxes from firearms and ammunition sales.

Supporters of hunting and conservative officials have pursued various strategies to maintain interest in the activity, including outreach to women and youth, establishing seasons for additional species, and increasing hunter access to government-owned property.

Currently, hunting is permitted on roughly 51 million acres managed by the National Park Service across 76 locations, though only about 8 million of those acres are in the continental United States, with the remainder in Alaska. Fishing is authorized at 213 locations. Park Service sites generally follow state hunting and fishing rules but can implement additional restrictions to ensure public safety and protect natural resources, such as prohibiting firearms use near trails or facilities.

Dan Wenk, who previously served as Yellowstone National Park superintendent and National Park Service deputy operations director, explained that park administrators developed their current rules through stakeholder consultation, resulting in widespread acceptance of most restrictions. He questioned the Trump administration’s decision to dismantle this framework without extensive public input.

“Process never seems to stand in the way of many things with this administration,” Wenk said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. “This was never a big issue. I’d love to know the problem we’re trying to solve. Then I could understand the costs that it’s going to take to solve it in terms of resources and visitor safety.”

Interior Department spokesperson Elizabeth Peace described the order as a “commonsense approach to public land management” in an email statement, emphasizing that necessary closures or limitations for public safety, resource protection or legal compliance would continue.

“For decades, sportsmen and women have been some of the strongest stewards of our public lands,” she said, “and this order ensures their access is not unnecessarily restricted by outdated or overly broad limitations that are not required by law.”

Peace did not respond to additional questions about whether the department conducted public outreach before issuing the directive.

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which advocates for hunting and fishing access, released a statement online in January describing the order as balancing wildlife management with outdoor traditions supported by hunters and anglers. Ducks Unlimited issued a statement in March saying Burgum’s directive acknowledges duck hunters’ “vital role.”

“This process will streamline federal regulations, make them more consistent with existing state rules, and provide more public-land access for outdoor recreation. Thank you, Secretary Burgum, for prioritizing America’s hunters and anglers,” the statement said.

Elaine Leslie, former director of the National Park Service’s biological resources department, criticized Trump for undermining a well-intentioned process, arguing the order lacks scientific foundation.

“I don’t want to take my young grandchildren to a park unit only to have a hunter drag a gutted elk they shot across a visitor center parking lot. Nor enter a restroom where hunters are cleaning their game,” Leslie said in a text to the AP. “There is a time and place for hunting, trapping and fishing … but that doesn’t mean every place has to be open to every activity especially at the expense of others and degrading our public resources.”

NEW YORK – Federal officials filed an appeal Friday following a judicial decision that rejected the legal foundation for a 10% worldwide tariff implemented in February.

The U.S. Court of International Trade determined Thursday in a split 2-1 ruling that Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act was not designed to tackle trade imbalances that result when America purchases more foreign goods than it sells abroad. The judicial decision specifically prevented tariff collection from three parties that filed suit – two smaller companies and Washington state.

Although the decision affects levies scheduled to end in approximately two months, it represents another judicial obstacle to Trump’s worldwide tariff strategy and arrives one week before his planned trade discussions with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing.

The ruling establishes groundwork for an extended legal fight concerning billions of dollars in potential tariff reimbursements, occurring three months following the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of Trump’s broad international tariffs enacted through national emergency legislation.

Speaking with reporters Thursday, Trump criticized the trade court’s decision, attributing it to “two radical left judges.”

In February, the Supreme Court determined Trump lacked legal power to enact the previous tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, prompting Trump to establish substitute 10% levies on all imports through Section 122 of the Trade Act.

These newer tariffs served as an interim measure, scheduled to end July 24 without congressional extension.

President Donald Trump has reportedly approved the dismissal of Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary, according to a Wall Street Journal report published Friday that cited sources with knowledge of the situation.

Neither the White House nor the Department of Health and Human Services, which has oversight of the FDA, responded immediately to requests for comment.

Speculation about Makary’s possible removal has grown over the past week amid criticism related to disputed choices regarding drug approvals, vaccine policies, and the agency’s approach to mifepristone, commonly known as the abortion pill.

A White House insider indicated they were informed the FDA commissioner “is done” and that Trump had given his approval for the dismissal.

This departure would continue a pattern of turnover within federal health organizations, as top officials have already left positions at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, and other agencies. The FDA currently has interim leadership overseeing its primary drug development divisions.

Makary, who serves as a surgical oncologist at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, received confirmation as FDA commissioner in March of last year. He has authored popular books addressing healthcare expenses and what he characterized as shortcomings in contemporary medical practice, and has served as a prominent supporter of the Make America Healthy Again initiative championed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The Wall Street Journal noted that these plans remain preliminary and subject to modification.

WASHINGTON — Defense attorneys for the man accused of opening fire at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner want senior Justice Department leaders removed from his prosecution, claiming their presence at the event creates a conflict of interest.

Cole Tomas Allen’s legal team filed court documents Thursday evening requesting that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro be barred from making prosecutorial decisions in the case. Both officials were at the Washington Hilton on April 25 when Allen allegedly breached security and discharged a shotgun at a Secret Service agent.

Defense lawyers Eugene Ohm and Tezira Abe, both assistant federal public defenders, contend that having potential victims oversee the prosecution raises serious ethical concerns.

“As this case proceeds closer to trial, the country and the world will continue to wonder — how can the American justice system permit a victim to prosecute a criminal defendant in a case involving them?” defense attorneys Eugene Ohm and Tezira Abe wrote.

The defense team suggested appointing a special prosecutor and asked U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, nominated by Trump, to remove Pirro, Blanche and potentially other department officials from direct participation in the case.

“Both heard gunshots, which presumably forced them to duck below the tables with the rest of the occupants. They were quickly evacuated. Shortly thereafter, they learned that law enforcement believed the target was certain administration officials,” Ohm and Abe wrote.

Pirro announced her office would file a response to the defense motion and issued a strong statement about the case.

“We will not tolerate people who come to the District of Columbia to engage in antidemocratic acts of political violence; and we will prosecute all such acts to the fullest extent of the law,” Pirro said in a statement.

Allen faces arraignment Monday following Tuesday’s grand jury indictment in Washington. The charges include attempting to kill President Donald Trump, who maintains a close friendship with Pirro. Blanche previously represented Trump as a private lawyer before joining the Justice Department last year.

When contacted for comment, Blanche’s spokesperson directed inquiries to Pirro’s office.

Additional charges against Allen include assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon and two firearms violations. The attempted assassination charge alone carries a potential life sentence upon conviction.

During the incident, the targeted Secret Service officer sustained one gunshot to his bulletproof vest and returned fire five times without striking anyone. Allen, 31, from Torrance, California, suffered injuries but was not shot.

Pro-life advocates are set to gather with White House officials on Friday amid mounting concerns that President Trump hasn’t pursued their agenda with sufficient intensity, particularly regarding enhanced abortion restrictions and stronger enforcement of current regulations.

The scheduled discussion follows recent criticism from Marjorie Dannenfelser, who leads Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a prominent advocacy organization. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, Dannenfelser pointed out that abortion numbers have increased nationwide following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, stating bluntly that “Trump is the problem.”

These developments highlight rising friction between Trump and segments of the anti-abortion community that previously served as crucial political supporters during his initial White House bid.

Though activists acknowledge Trump’s role in facilitating Roe’s reversal through his Supreme Court nominees, several organizations argue his administration hasn’t delivered on promised federal measures to limit abortion availability, particularly regarding stricter controls on the abortion medication mifepristone and crackdowns on internet-based pill distribution.

White House representative Allison Schuster pushed back against these criticisms, defending the administration’s accomplishments.

“President Trump is the most pro-life and pro-family president in American history, and his Administration has announced a series of bold actions to safeguard life and uphold Americans’ fundamental freedoms, including ending federal funding of abortion abroad,” Schuster stated.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America declined to provide additional comments when contacted.

Research from the Guttmacher Institute indicates abortion procedures have actually increased since the high court’s 2022 decision that eliminated nationwide abortion protections. The organization estimates approximately 1,126,000 abortions were performed by medical providers in 2025, marking the highest total since 2009. This surge stems primarily from greater reliance on abortion medications, which now represent 65% of all procedures in states where abortion remains legal.

Political pressure has intensified recently as Republican legislators and anti-abortion organizations urge the Food and Drug Administration to reconsider safety protocols for mifepristone, the drug involved in more than half of American abortions. Senate Republicans initiated an investigation into abortion pill manufacturers in March while calling on the FDA to restrict online medication sales.

The mifepristone controversy has grown following multiple court decisions regarding mail-order availability of the medication.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary order maintaining access to the drug via telemedicine and postal delivery while legal challenges proceed.

Virginia’s highest court delivered a crushing blow to Democratic congressional ambitions on Friday, invalidating a redistricting plan that voters had approved just months earlier.

The state’s top justices determined that Democratic lawmakers broke constitutional procedures when they put the redistricting amendment before voters. Although citizens narrowly backed the measure on April 21, the court’s decision has now nullified that outcome entirely.

“This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void,” the court declared in its written decision.

The invalidated redistricting scheme could have delivered Democrats up to four new congressional seats from Virginia, part of a broader strategy to counter Republican map-drawing efforts championed by former President Donald Trump across the nation. With this setback, combined with recent federal court decisions weakening voting rights protections, Republicans have gained a stronger position in the national redistricting battle ahead of November’s elections.

While congressional boundaries are normally redrawn every ten years following the census, Trump launched an unprecedented wave of mid-decade map changes last year by pushing Texas Republicans to redraw their districts for additional House seats to preserve their slim majority.

Other states have followed suit in this redistricting scramble. California has implemented new voter-backed districts favoring Democrats, while Utah’s supreme court imposed a congressional map also helping Democratic candidates. Conversely, Republicans are positioned to benefit from fresh House districts approved in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee. Additional GOP gains could emerge following the Supreme Court’s voting rights decision, which has encouraged other Republican-controlled states to consider new maps before this year’s voting.

Virginia’s current House delegation includes six Democrats and five Republicans, all elected from court-imposed districts after a bipartisan redistricting panel couldn’t reach agreement following the 2020 census. The proposed Democratic map could have positioned the party to capture all but one of the state’s eleven congressional seats.

The Democratic design would have created five districts centered in northern Virginia’s Democratic stronghold, including one that stretched like a lobster claw to encompass Republican-leaning rural territory. Changes to four additional districts spanning Richmond, southern Virginia and Hampton Roads would have weakened conservative voting strength in those regions. A reconfigured western Virginia district would have combined three Democratic-friendly college communities to counterbalance other Republican voters.

Virginia’s Supreme Court consists of seven justices selected by the state legislature, which has shifted between Democratic, Republican and divided control in recent years. Legal scholars note the court lacks a clear ideological lean.

The legal challenge centered on the procedural steps lawmakers used to authorize the new districts, rather than questioning the maps themselves.

Since Virginia’s redistricting commission was created through a constitutional amendment approved by voters, legislators needed to propose another amendment to redraw the districts. This process required passing a resolution in two separate legislative sessions, with a state election occurring between them, before placing the amendment on the ballot.

Lawmakers first approved the amendment last October while early voting was already underway but before it ended on election day. The legislature’s second vote happened after the new session began in January. A separate February bill outlined the new districts, contingent on voter approval of the constitutional amendment.

Legal arguments centered on whether lawmakers’ initial amendment approval came too late, since early voting had already begun for the 2025 general election.

Defense attorney Matthew Seligman, representing the legislature, contended that “election” should be interpreted narrowly as referring only to the Tuesday general election date. Under this definition, he told judges, the legislature’s first redistricting vote occurred before the election and met constitutional requirements.

Plaintiff attorney Thomas McCarthy argued that “election” should encompass the entire voting period, which extends several weeks in Virginia. If correct, he told justices, then lawmakers’ initial redistricting endorsement violated the state constitution’s timing requirements.

In January, Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. from rural Tazewell County in southwestern Virginia ruled that lawmakers violated their own procedures for adding the redistricting amendment to last fall’s special session. Hurley also determined that legislators failed to approve the amendment initially before public voting began in last year’s general election and didn’t publish the amendment three months before the election as legally required. He declared the amendment invalid and void.

The Virginia Supreme Court suspended Hurley’s ruling and permitted the redistricting vote to proceed while hearing arguments on the case.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed confidence Friday that America can maintain strong ties with the Catholic Church, even as President Donald Trump continues his public disagreements with Pope Leo.

Following his Thursday visit to Vatican City, Rubio described his meeting with church officials as “very positive” while speaking to reporters before departing Rome on Friday.

When questioned about the president’s public criticism of Pope Leo regarding his statements on the Iran conflict and other matters, Rubio defended Trump’s approach, saying the president acts in America’s best interests and “will always speak clearly about how he feels about the U.S. and U.S. policy.”

“I think we can do that and continue to also have a very productive and fruitful and important relationship with the church, because it plays an important role in the world as well,” Rubio stated.

Regarding Cuba’s ongoing energy shortage amid U.S. restrictions on oil deliveries to the island nation, Rubio announced America’s willingness to increase humanitarian assistance.

The announcement came as Washington imposed fresh sanctions Thursday targeting a Cuban military-run business conglomerate and a mining partnership, part of ongoing efforts to pressure the communist government toward implementing reforms.

According to Rubio, America has already delivered $6 million in humanitarian assistance to Cuban citizens through church channels and had proposed providing $100 million directly to the Cuban government, which declined to handle the distribution.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Defense has started making new UFO documents available to the public, allowing Americans to form their own opinions about what officials call “unidentified anomalous phenomena.”

The transparency initiative involves multiple federal agencies working together, including the White House, national intelligence director, Energy Department, NASA and FBI.

In a Friday social media post, the Pentagon stated that while previous administrations attempted to discredit or discourage the American people, President Donald Trump “is focused on providing maximum transparency to the public, who can ultimately make up their own minds about the information contained in these files.” Defense officials indicated more documents will be made available gradually.

The Republican president has been hinting at this announcement since February. Trump has previously made public records concerning the killings of President John F. Kennedy, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., though those releases contained little new information beyond what was already public knowledge.

Defense Department officials have spent years working to declassify UFO-related documents, and lawmakers established a dedicated office in 2022 for declassifying this material. The office’s initial 2024 report documented hundreds of additional UAP incidents but discovered no proof that the U.S. government had ever verified a sighting of extraterrestrial technology.

Lawmakers directed the Pentagon to start making decades of UFO sighting files public in 2022 after military personnel began sharing encounters with unexplained aircraft.

A small group of Republican lawmakers has pushed for greater transparency, claiming the Pentagon has withheld documents. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna sent a March letter requesting 46 UAP videos that whistleblowers had identified. Luna announced on social media Friday that those videos are anticipated to be included in a future Pentagon release.

Rep. Tim Burchett expressed gratitude to Trump for “keeping his word” on transparency and disclosure.

“I would like to remind people that transparency won’t all happen at once, it will take some time,” Burchett said in a statement.

Specialists have recommended caution regarding the new file releases, noting that UAP videos are frequently misunderstood and misrepresented by people unfamiliar with sophisticated military equipment. The Pentagon’s 2024 report disputed assertions that the U.S. government has obtained alien technology or verified evidence of extraterrestrial life.

Illinois voters will not see an abortion rights measure on their ballots this November after the state’s Democratic-controlled legislature missed the deadline to advance a constitutional amendment. Lawmakers were unable to produce legislation that would have permanently protected abortion access in the Illinois state constitution by the required cutoff date.

The development represents an unexpected setback in a state where abortion access has been widely expanded and protected. Illinois has positioned itself as a regional hub for women seeking abortion services, drawing patients from across the Midwest and other areas where access has been restricted.

While Illinois will not have an abortion-related ballot question this fall, voters in multiple other states across the nation will be deciding on similar constitutional measures during the November election.

Preservation specialists and historic building experts are sounding alarms over President Trump’s proposal to apply white paint to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, citing concerns that such action could inflict lasting harm on the structure’s historic granite exterior.

The plan has drawn opposition from those who work to protect historically significant architecture, who argue that painting over the building’s original granite surface would compromise its integrity and could not be undone without causing additional damage to the federal landmark.

Massachusetts Democratic Representative Bill Keating recently participated in an interview with NPR’s Leila Fadel regarding ongoing U.S. military operations against suspected drug smuggling vessels.

The conversation centered on the military’s continued efforts to intercept and strike suspected narcotics trafficking boats operating in both Pacific and Caribbean waters.

Keating, who serves as a Democratic representative from Massachusetts, provided his perspective on these ongoing maritime interdiction operations during the NPR interview.

A special review panel created by President Trump has issued a call for sweeping reforms to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the nation’s primary disaster response organization.

The council, tasked with examining FEMA’s operations and effectiveness, has put forward proposals for substantial changes to how the agency functions during national emergencies and natural disasters.

President Donald Trump will travel to Beijing next week with a considerably reduced group of American business executives, according to five sources familiar with the planning process. The smaller delegation signals internal disagreements within the administration regarding economic strategy toward China and modest hopes for the upcoming diplomatic meetings.

The White House and Treasury Department considered extending invitations to representatives from roughly twelve American corporations for the May 14-15 summit, a sharp contrast to Trump’s previous 2017 Beijing trip when 29 prominent business leaders joined the presidential entourage.

While Reuters could not verify the complete roster of invited companies, Semafor reported that executives from major firms including Nvidia, Apple, Qualcomm, Citigroup, and Boeing received invitations to participate in the diplomatic visit.

The business leaders would participate in an official state dinner hosted by Chinese President Xi Jinping alongside Trump, according to two sources briefed on the arrangements.

Sources indicated that invitation offers were distributed unusually late due to disagreements within the administration about both the delegation’s size and which executives should receive invitations.

The scaled-back American business presence contrasts sharply with recent visits by other Western leaders to Beijing. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer brought 60 business and cultural representatives during his January trip, while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz traveled with 29 industry leaders the following month.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer had expressed reluctance about bringing a large group of high-profile CEOs to Beijing when the summit was originally scheduled for March, preferring to maintain focus on “managed trade” discussions, Reuters previously reported.

Reva Goujon, a geopolitical strategist with consulting firm Rhodium Group, commented on the approach: “A small CEO delegation that aligns with the actual concessions and negotiating points would make sense… Greer seems very conscious of not setting expectations too high.”

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, whose company has faced obstacles selling artificial intelligence chips to China, told CNBC Tuesday that he would participate in Trump’s China visit “if invited.”

Three sources revealed that major American beef and soybean producers were also being considered for inclusion in the delegation.

All individuals who spoke with Reuters requested anonymity because state visit planning remains in progress.

Trump’s 2017 Beijing visit emphasized ceremony and commercial agreements. Xi Jinping provided Trump with an exclusive private tour of the Forbidden City, and the trip featured deals valued at more than $250 billion, including a $37 billion agreement for 300 Boeing aircraft and energy projects worth $69 billion.

However, many of those agreements consisted of non-binding memoranda of understanding or multi-year purchasing frameworks rather than immediate contracts.

The 2017 American delegation included ten companies from the gas and energy sectors. Qualcomm, a chip supplier that considers China its largest market, was among the few technology companies that participated.

Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg stated last month that this year’s summit represents a crucial opportunity for securing China’s first major Boeing order since 2017. Industry sources indicate that Boeing and China have conducted extended negotiations for a potential deal involving 500 737 MAX aircraft plus additional widebody jets.

Summit discussions will also address the possibility of extending October’s trade truce, during which both nations suspended retaliatory export controls. Beijing seeks at least a one-year extension while Washington prefers a six-month timeline, according to two sources.

China additionally wants the Trump administration to pledge against future retaliatory trade measures such as technology export controls and to eliminate existing restrictions on chipmaking equipment and advanced memory chips, according to individuals briefed on summit preparations.

A Libyan physician who treats approximately 1,000 patients in rural southwestern Indiana faces an uncertain future as he awaits renewal of his green card under immigration policies that have frozen applications from dozens of nations considered high-risk.

Dr. Faysal Alghoula’s current authorization expires this September if officials reject his renewal request.

However, federal authorities recently created a special exception for physicians awaiting visa or green card decisions, potentially enabling Alghoula’s case to proceed. Medical associations and immigration lawyers had advocated for this change for months, pointing to severe physician shortages and the fact that foreign-educated doctors often serve communities with limited medical access, data from the National Library of Medicine shows.

The doctor shortage concerns Alghoula deeply, as he works as a lung specialist and ICU physician serving rural communities across Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky.

“It is about four to five months wait to get the pulmonologist here,” he said.

However, immigration lawyers and affected individuals express uncertainty about the exemption’s actual impact. While doctors can now have their cases evaluated, approval isn’t guaranteed. Questions also remain about whether immigration officials can process these applications before critical deadlines like Alghoula’s arrive.

Alghoula expressed distrust of the administration’s intentions, citing reports of immigrants being detained during renewal appointments similar to his upcoming interview.

“I’m still scared to go to my interview,” said Alghoula, who has resided in America since 2016.

The application freeze continues affecting thousands of others, including scientists and business owners from 39 nations such as Iran, Afghanistan and Venezuela. During this suspension, many cannot legally work, obtain health coverage or driver’s licenses. Leaving the United States means they cannot return.

Federal officials implemented the review suspension last year for applicants from countries labeled high-risk, later expanding it to cover visa seekers from over 75 nations due to concerns about potential public assistance dependency. These actions align with broader immigration restrictions under the current administration.

The suspension followed a shooting incident involving two National Guard members by an Afghan national, which officials said demonstrated “what a lack of screening, vetting, and prioritizing expedient adjudications can do to the American people.”

The Department of Homeland Security, which supervises immigration agencies, declined to address questions about the suspension or physician exemption but stated via email that proper applicant screening is essential after determining previous administrations failed in this area.

“There are lots of bans and lots of pauses that are happening right now,” said Greg Siskind, a Memphis-based immigration lawyer. “It is all about making life miserable for people who are here legally so they will choose other countries.”

The exact number of affected physicians remains unknown, though an American Academy of Family Physicians representative confirmed multiple doctors have contacted the organization seeking assistance.

Prior to the exemption, numerous immigrants pursued federal litigation demanding decisions on their pending cases.

Among them was Iranian physician Dr. Zahra Shokri Varniab, who arrived in America three years ago for radiology research. While awaiting green card approval to enter a residency program, her application became trapped in the suspension. After filing suit for a decision, a federal judge ordered immigration authorities to review her case.

Officials reviewed and rejected her application. The 33-year-old doctor suspects retaliation for her lawsuit motivated the denial.

“I feel completely confused,” Shokri Varniab said.

Government attorneys argued in court documents that Shokri Varniab’s application contained contradictions regarding her plans to practice medicine versus conduct research. She maintains she intends to pursue both paths.

Since her case received a decision, the physician exemption may not apply to her situation, though she continues seeking court intervention.

Highly skilled workers in science and technology report inability to work during the suspension while awaiting employment authorization paperwork. Some describe depleting funds for housing and food while fearing career destruction if forced to leave America.

Iranian nationals face particular anxiety about returning home amid ongoing conflicts with U.S. and Israeli forces. They report difficulty contacting family due to government internet restrictions and cannot depend on relatives for financial assistance.

Kaveh Javanshirjavid arrived from Iran seven years ago to pursue doctoral studies in agriculture. Though scheduled to begin laboratory work in January, he requires employment authorization and his application remains frozen.

The 41-year-old borrows money from friends for rent while depending on his wife’s graduate stipend for essentials. However, this arrangement’s sustainability is questionable since she also needs work authorization after completing her degree this summer as another Iranian national.

“The whole of my life is on hold,” he said.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Republican legislators in Alabama may vote Friday on legislation allowing new congressional primaries if federal courts permit the state to implement different U.S. House district boundaries before November’s midterm elections.

The proposed Alabama bill, requiring just one final Senate approval before reaching Republican Governor Kay Ivey, attempts to capitalize on a recent Supreme Court decision in a Louisiana case that substantially diminished Voting Rights Act safeguards for minority communities.

GOP officials across Southern states have rapidly moved to exploit this court decision. Tennessee passed new congressional boundaries Thursday that divide a Democratic-controlled, predominantly Black district in Memphis. Louisiana has delayed its House primaries while legislators craft new district lines. South Carolina House Republicans have also introduced a fresh congressional map.

Even prior to the Supreme Court decision, both major parties were already locked in intense redistricting fights, with each side pursuing advantages in midterm contests that will decide control of the narrowly divided House.

Following former President Donald Trump’s push for Texas to redraw its congressional boundaries last summer, nine states total have implemented new House districts. Republicans believe they could secure up to 14 additional seats from these changes, while Democrats estimate they might gain as many as 10. However, aggressive gerrymandering could potentially harm both parties in highly contested districts.

Alabama officials have petitioned federal judges to remove a court mandate requiring the state to maintain a second district where Black voters constitute a majority or near-majority. This district resulted in the 2024 election of Democratic Representative Shomari Figures, who is Black.

Instead, Republicans seek to implement a map that state lawmakers created in 2023 — previously rejected by federal courts — that could enable them to regain control of Figures’ district. Black residents currently comprise approximately 48% of the district’s voting-age population, which would decrease to roughly 39% under the 2023 proposal.

Republicans anticipate federal courts might view their case more favorably following the Supreme Court’s Louisiana ruling. Should a court approve Alabama’s petition, the pending legislation would bypass the May 19 primary for certain congressional races and authorize the governor to organize new primaries using the revised districts.

“It is an if, and only if, the courts take action,” stated Republican state Senator Chris Elliott.

The House approved the measure along party lines Wednesday, and a Senate committee advanced it to the full chamber Thursday.

Speaking before the Senate committee, Figures expressed that his concern extends beyond his own position to people who have struggled for decades “to have a voice in what government looks like.”

“I ran into a gentleman last night, and he said, ‘Hey man, I hear your job is on the line.’ And I told him, ‘No, Shomari Figures is going to be OK. Your voice is on the line,’” Figures testified.

Several Democrats emphasized that the state’s segregationist history remains relatively recent, noting that districts established under the Voting Rights Act enabled Black representation following centuries of voter disenfranchisement.

“How long are we going to have to repeat history before we realize that all people deserve to be respected and deserve to have the feeling that they are valued?” questioned Democratic state Senator Linda Coleman-Madison, who is Black.

South Carolina House Republicans unveiled a proposed new congressional map Thursday that would enhance GOP prospects for winning the sole seat currently held by a Democrat.

The plan would remove Democratic Representative Jim Clyburn from the 6th District he has served since 1992, while dividing the district among four separate ones. Clyburn’s existing district contains nearly 50% Black voters, and in the 2024 presidential race, more than 60% of residents supported Democrat Kamala Harris.

The suggested map would also separate the Democratic stronghold of Columbia and its more conservative suburbs across four different districts.

The state House Wednesday passed a resolution authorizing lawmakers to reconvene after their regular session ends May 14 to continue redistricting discussions. However, the Senate Thursday postponed action on the resolution because members wanted clarity about potential new district configurations, according to Republican Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey.

Following the House plan’s release, Massey voiced ongoing concerns. He noted that up to four districts might become competitive, demanding significant resources for Republican candidates and potentially damaging down-ballot party races.

“If we get too cute with this, we could end up losing seats,” Massey warned.

The state’s primary elections are scheduled for June 9.

A federal judge delivered a sharp rebuke Thursday to the Trump administration’s cancellation of hundreds of humanities grants, declaring the actions unconstitutional and discriminatory.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that last April’s elimination of more than 1,400 grants — worth over $100 million in congressional funding to scholars, writers, research institutions and humanities organizations — violated constitutional protections.

The grant cancellations were conducted as part of cost-reduction efforts overseen by billionaire Elon Musk through the Department of Government Efficiency.

“The Government engaged in blatant viewpoint discrimination,” McMahon stated in her ruling, criticizing what the Trump administration described as efforts to eliminate diversity programs.

According to the judge’s decision, the cancellations breached both First Amendment free speech protections and Fifth Amendment equal protection guarantees. The court also determined that DOGE lacked legal standing to cancel the grants.

“What mattered to DOGE was not whether a grant lacked scholarly merit, failed to comply with its terms, or fell outside NEH’s (National Endowment for the Humanities) statutory purposes. What mattered was that the grant concerned a ‘minority group’,” McMahon wrote in her opinion.

“DOGE swept in race and ethnicity – including grants concerning Black, Asian, Latino, and Indigenous communities – as well as national origin and immigration status; religion and religious identity (including Jewish, Christian, and Muslim subjects); sex; and sexual orientation, as criteria for grant termination.”

The judge additionally noted that DOGE personnel’s reliance on the artificial intelligence platform ChatGPT to justify certain grant terminations did not excuse the government’s actions.

“The government cannot escape liability for DOGE’s work by scapegoating ChatGPT,” McMahon stated.

Civil rights organizations have expressed alarm over Trump’s targeting of educational and cultural institutions, diversity programs, and historical sites and museums, warning these actions could reverse decades of social advancement and diminish recognition of important periods in American history.

Trump has claimed that numerous cultural, arts and educational organizations serve as strongholds of liberal and “anti-American” ideologies that fail to present U.S. history favorably.

The former president has threatened to eliminate federal funding for institutions over pro-Palestinian demonstrations protesting U.S. ally Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, transgender policies, climate programs and diversity initiatives.

His criticism has encompassed prestigious universities, the Smithsonian Institution and the Kennedy Center, as well as media organizations such as National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.

WASHINGTON – The White House announced late Thursday evening that President Donald Trump will hold a public address in the Rose Garden on Friday afternoon at 12:00 p.m. Eastern time.

Officials have not revealed the subject matter that the president plans to discuss during his scheduled appearance. The announcement came as part of Trump’s official calendar released by White House staff.

The Rose Garden address is set to take place at 4:00 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time for international audiences.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge ruled Thursday that current guidelines directing immigration officers on how to conduct arrests without warrants fail to satisfy legal requirements for probable cause and should be discontinued.

U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell in Washington, D.C., extended a preliminary injunction she first granted in December, stating that immigration enforcement agents operating in her district cannot use the probable cause standards outlined in a five-page directive from Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s former acting director when making civil immigration arrests without warrants.

The judge identified several problems with the guidance, particularly noting that it did not require officers to evaluate an individual’s ties to their local community before determining whether that person posed a flight risk warranting immediate detention.

This ruling represents another development in litigation brought by four non-citizens and the advocacy group CASA in Washington during 2025, challenging their detentions during federal immigration operations that were part of an enforcement initiative directed by President Donald Trump.

Judge Howell granted the plaintiffs’ request for additional documentation to clarify how the policy would be carried out, though she dismissed certain arguments and acknowledged the government had complied with portions of her earlier injunction.

When asked about Thursday’s decision, the Department of Homeland Security stated in an email that “ICE has authority for lawful arrests.”

“Law enforcement officers use ‘reasonable suspicion’ to investigate immigration status and probable cause to make arrests consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” the DHS statement continued. “The Supreme Court has already vindicated us on these practices.”

Madeline Gates, associate counsel with the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, said “We got what we were asking for essentially.” She explained the decision “reaffirms that federal agents have to comply with the law. They do not get a pass in doing immigration enforcement.”

“This particular case is all about what happens at the outset, before the arrest is made,” Gates added.

WASHINGTON — Federal officials are examining Mexico’s network of 53 diplomatic facilities throughout America, an evaluation that may result in some locations being shuttered, according to a State Department source who spoke Thursday.

The anonymous official, who lacked authorization for public statements, provided no explanation for the assessment’s purpose or scope, though the development threatens to escalate already strained relations between the neighboring nations. CBS News first disclosed the review.

Trump has pursued an unusually assertive approach toward Latin American affairs compared to recent presidents, conducting military operations that captured Venezuela’s leadership, demanding sweeping Venezuelan changes, implementing petroleum sanctions against Cuba, intervening in elections across Argentina and Honduras, and issuing military threats against Mexican drug organizations.

Mexican leader Claudia Sheinbaum has worked to preserve positive ties with Trump while countering American pressure through intensified anti-cartel enforcement, which has contributed to declining murder rates. However, recent controversies have triggered significant political turbulence in Mexico.

Initially, two CIA operatives perished during anti-drug operations alongside local forces in northern Chihuahua state, prompting days of conflicting statements from Mexican officials. Subsequently, American prosecutors filed drug trafficking charges against multiple members of Sheinbaum’s political party, including a close associate.

Trump reiterated his position earlier this week, stating: “If Mexico doesn’t act, we will.”

These developments have intensified Trump administration pressure on Sheinbaum while sparking debate about her commitment to protecting Mexican independence.

Mexico operates the largest foreign diplomatic presence within American borders. These facilities assist Mexican nationals residing in the US through document services, legal support, and various citizen needs.

Dylan Johnson, assistant secretary of state for public affairs, explained: “The Department of State is constantly reviewing all aspects of American foreign relations to ensure they are in line with the President’s America First foreign policy agenda and advance American interests.”

Washington has previously shuttered diplomatic facilities from other nations, including a Chinese consulate in Houston and three Russian locations spanning San Francisco, Washington area, and New York region.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Federal authorities conducted a sweeping drug enforcement operation near downtown Los Angeles at a location notorious for narcotics activity and homeless camps, timing that coincided with the start of mayoral election voting in a city grappling with ongoing public safety challenges.

Democratic Mayor Karen Bass, who has faced a challenging first term marked by devastating wildfires and recovery efforts, has been pushing city council members to fast-track police department hiring as she campaigns for another four-year term. The primary voting period concludes on June 2.

The Wednesday operation led to 18 people being taken into custody and focused on disrupting fentanyl and methamphetamine trafficking in the MacArthur Park area, situated in a heavily populated immigrant community west of the city center. The enforcement action followed years of neighborhood residents voicing concerns about criminal activity, drug dealing, and gang presence in the vicinity.

Municipal officials have faced mounting pressure to halt a needle distribution initiative at the park that critics argue perpetuates rather than addresses local problems. These harm reduction programs supply clean syringes to drug users with the intention of preventing HIV and other bloodborne disease transmission.

At a Wednesday candidate forum, Bass indicated she would terminate the park’s needle program, aligning her position with Republican challenger Spencer Pratt, who has called for eliminating needle exchanges throughout the city. Democratic City Councilmember Nithya Raman, also running for mayor, stated she would continue the program.

Department-wide police data indicates both property crimes and violent offenses have decreased this year compared to 2025.

“No matter what these crime statistics are telling anybody, it’s not how people feel on the street,” Pratt said.

Security concerns extend beyond local boundaries. World Cup matches are scheduled to begin in Southern California next month, and Los Angeles will serve as host for the 2028 Olympics. While federal agencies lead Olympic security planning, questions already exist about whether the Los Angeles Police Department will have sufficient funding and staffing to fulfill its responsibilities.

President Donald Trump has maintained a contentious relationship with heavily Democratic California. In 2019, he made threats to intervene in the state’s homelessness situation but took no action. California serves as headquarters for the so-called Trump resistance, and Trump frequently portrays California as embodying everything he considers problematic about America.

Los Angeles specifically has drawn administration criticism. Trump sent National Guard troops and Marines to the city last summer over objections from Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom following protests that erupted after immigration enforcement sweeps throughout the region. A newly established federal anti-fraud unit has focused attention on Los Angeles regarding extensive hospice fraud, although Newsom maintains his administration has been working on the issue for an extended period.

However, federal officials did collaborate with the LAPD on the drug enforcement operation.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, appointed during the Trump administration, released a statement saying authorities were “reclaiming MacArthur Park from criminals and drug addicts to return this public space to the citizens.” Bass stated the operation had been in development for “many months.” Pratt expressed support for increased federal participation, describing the joint operation as “unbelievable.”

The mayoral campaign in the nearly 4 million-person city is unfolding during a particularly difficult period, with persistent complaints about homelessness, deteriorating infrastructure, and rising housing costs. The previously growing region is experiencing population decline — Los Angeles County saw approximately 54,000 residents leave between July 2024 and July 2025, representing the nation’s largest numerical population decrease for any county, according to federal statistics.

When campaigning four years ago, Bass discussed expanding police department size. However, officer numbers have declined significantly from a peak of 10,000 sworn officers in 2020 to approximately 8,700 currently.

Bass highlights statistics showing her administration has decreased the homeless population, but deteriorating tent camps and rows of abandoned recreational vehicles continue to be common sights across much of the city.

The race in strongly Democratic LA — which also features tech entrepreneur Adam Miller and community activist Rae Huang — resembles the 2022 election, when billionaire developer Rick Caruso campaigned on promises to increase police spending amid widespread worries about crime and homelessness. Bass won that contest decisively.

Norm Langer, who operates Langer’s Delicatessen across from the park, had contemplated shuttering the well-known restaurant due to drug activity and encampments that he claimed were deterring customers.

He informed reporters Wednesday he was “absolutely thrilled” about the federal operation but also seemed to doubt Bass’ dedication to ending the needle distribution at the park.

The program, he said, is “prolonging these people getting help.”

John Alle, who owns the restaurant building, said the LAPD had reduced patrols in the park.

“We’ve got a day or two where we don’t have MacArthur Park patrolled. And we’re suffering the consequences,” Alle said. “The crime has not gone down.”

A Manhattan federal judge has permanently blocked the Trump administration from eliminating more than $100 million in humanities funding, declaring the grant cancellations violated constitutional protections and exceeded the Department of Government Efficiency’s legal authority.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled Thursday in favor of The Authors Guild and other organizations whose grants were terminated, issuing a permanent injunction against the administration and condemning DOGE’s reliance on artificial intelligence to identify programs for defunding.

Federal attorneys had defended the elimination of over 1,400 congressionally-approved grants as lawful implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive orders, arguing the cuts targeted diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives while reducing discretionary expenditures aligned with administration goals.

Neither the White House nor the Department of Justice, which represented the government in the litigation, responded to requests for comment Thursday night. Officials have not indicated whether they plan to appeal the decision.

In her ruling, McMahon determined the government breached First Amendment protections and Fifth Amendment equal protection guarantees, finding DOGE lacked proper authorization to terminate the funding. She characterized the DEI-based grant cancellations as “a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.”

“The public interest favors permanent relief,” McMahon stated in her decision. “The public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution.”

Organizations that challenged the government’s actions, including the American Council of Learned Societies, American Historical Association and Modern Language Association, celebrated the outcome in a collective statement.

“This ruling in an important achievement in our effort to restore the NEH’s ability to fulfill the vital mission with which Congress charged it: helping to create and sustain ‘a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry’ through the humanities,” stated Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association.

Authors Guild attorney Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi characterized the funding terminations as “a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection.”

“We’re pleased with the Court’s decision, which vindicates our clients: the brilliant academics, writers, and institutions doing work that is deeply important to our democracy,” Onayemi declared. “It also reaffirms that Congress’s 60 year old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive.”

The judge examined how administration officials categorized grant programs as DEI-related and employed ChatGPT to identify them for budget elimination. McMahon noted one instance where officials used the AI system to classify an anthology called “In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union” as a diversity initiative, among numerous other examples.

McMahon dismissed the government’s contention that constitutional violations were avoided because ChatGPT, rather than human officials, made the viewpoint determinations.

“ChatGPT was the Government’s chosen instrument for purposes of this project, and DOGE’s use of AI to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it,” she explained.

The funding cancellations were announced in April 2025, following Trump’s January executive order called “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” A February 2025 executive order implemented DOGE’s “cost efficiency initiative.”

Michael McDonald, serving as interim National Endowment for the Humanities chairman, notified grant recipients of their funding terminations through written correspondence.

In an April 1, 2025 letter to one recipient organization, he stated, “The NEH has reasonable cause to terminate your grant in light of the fact that the NEH is repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President’s agenda.”

Most terminated grants had been approved during the Biden presidency, with approximately 40 Biden-era grants surviving the elimination process, according to the judge’s findings.

McMahon acknowledged that incoming administrations may legitimately pursue different funding priorities, but emphasized “it has no license to suppress disfavored ideas.”

In an earlier temporary restraining order addressing First Amendment concerns, the judge determined that “defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients’ perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump made a surprise visit Thursday to the Lincoln Memorial, where he inspected the Reflecting Pool following renovations that added what he describes as an ‘American flag blue’ coating to the water feature.

During the unannounced visit, Trump not only examined the work but also drove his vehicle across the pool while speaking with reporters who had been brought to the scene ahead of his arrival.

The Republican commander-in-chief indicated he has additional plans for modifications to the Lincoln Memorial structure itself, though he declined to provide specific details about those proposals.

‘We have a beautiful plan for that too,’ Trump stated when discussing potential changes to the memorial honoring President Abraham Lincoln. However, construction crews have already been working for several years on developing an underground visitors’ center at the site.

Trump first revealed the reflecting pool renovation plans last month during an unrelated appearance in the Oval Office. He explained that the project was motivated by criticism from a German friend who visited Washington and described the pool’s water as dark, dirty and unsightly.

This renovation represents yet another effort by Trump to implement his vision for changes throughout the nation’s capital, following his previous decision to tear down the White House East Wing to construct a large ballroom in that location.

Reproductive rights advocates have successfully gathered the required number of petition signatures to bring a ballot measure before voters this November that would modify the state’s existing abortion restrictions. The proposed initiative seeks to remove criminal penalties currently imposed on medical professionals who violate abortion laws.

The collected signatures are now awaiting official verification before the measure can be formally placed on the ballot. If voters approve the initiative, it would eliminate the threat of imprisonment for healthcare providers who perform procedures that violate current abortion statutes.

Existing state law currently subjects medical professionals to potential prison sentences of up to five years for conducting abortions that violate statutory restrictions. The ballot measure joins similar reproductive rights questions that voters in multiple states will consider during the upcoming November election cycle.

OCHOPEE, Fla. — Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced Thursday that the controversial immigration detention facility dubbed ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ was designed from the start to be a temporary operation.

The Republican governor’s remarks coincided with reports from The New York Times indicating that state and federal authorities have begun preliminary discussions about closing the Everglades facility, which DeSantis stated has handled and deported 22,000 individuals since beginning operations last summer.

‘At some point, we will, of course, break it down. That was always the goal,’ the governor told reporters during a press conference in Lakeland.

According to DeSantis, the facility will cease operations if the Department of Homeland Security determines it has adequate resources to accommodate detainees at other locations.

While DHS officials haven’t explicitly requested the facility’s closure, such discussions have occurred since Markwayne Mullin became the new secretary in late March, and ‘you take a fresh look at these things,’ the governor explained.

Individuals held at the facility have reported substandard living conditions and challenges in obtaining legal representation.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement Thursday refuting claims that it was pressuring Florida to shut down operations at the site.

‘Florida continues to be a valuable partner in advancing President Trump’s immigration agenda, and DHS appreciates their support,’ the department stated. ‘DHS continuously evaluates detention needs and requirements to ensure they meet the latest operational requirements.’

The state has invested over $1 million daily to operate the facility, with DeSantis expecting federal reimbursement. Florida has yet to receive the $608 million it has requested.

According to a handbook released during litigation concerning detainee access to legal counsel, individuals are separated based on their criminal background and flight risk assessment. The document reveals that detainees must remain silent and motionless during routine head counts, with violations resulting in punishment for both the individual and their entire dormitory through confinement to housing units.

WASHINGTON — A federal trade court delivered a blow to the Trump administration Thursday, declaring that worldwide tariffs implemented by the president violated federal law.

The Court of International Trade in New York issued a divided ruling, with two of three judges determining that 10% tariffs imposed globally were unlawful following legal action brought by small business owners.

In their majority opinion, two judges concluded that Trump exceeded the authority Congress granted to the executive branch regarding tariff implementation. They described the tariffs as “invalid” and “unauthorized by law.”

The dissenting judge believed federal law provides the president with broader discretion in tariff matters.

Legal experts anticipate the administration will challenge Thursday’s ruling, which would move the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington before potentially reaching the Supreme Court again.

The disputed tariffs were implemented as a temporary measure following the Supreme Court’s February decision that overturned more extensive tariffs the administration had placed on nearly all nations worldwide last year. These worldwide 10% tariffs, established under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, were scheduled to end on July 24.

NEW YORK (AP) — New York’s governor is standing firm against warnings from President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement leader, who has vowed to significantly increase federal agents in the state if lawmakers approve restrictions on local cooperation with deportation efforts.

Governor Kathy Hochul made clear Thursday that intimidation tactics won’t change her course of action.

“I don’t take well to threats,” Hochul stated. “We’re going to pass what we think is important to protect New Yorkers.”

The confrontation highlights growing friction as Democratic leaders work to establish boundaries around the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement following what they describe as disorganized and aggressive deportation operations.

The pending legislation would prohibit state and local police from forming partnerships with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or serving in immigration enforcement roles. The measures would also require ICE agents to obtain court orders before entering protected areas like educational institutions and medical facilities.

Additional proposals from the Democratic governor include prohibiting law enforcement officers from covering their faces with masks during operations and establishing legal pathways for citizens to file lawsuits against ICE personnel.

After announcing Thursday that she had secured agreement from legislative leadership to incorporate the immigration measures into the state’s budget plan, Hochul emphasized her willingness to collaborate on serious criminal cases.

“This does not restrict our ability to help in criminal situations and I want people to understand that, but my God, it has gone too far,” she explained, adding that the state would “help you go after the hardened criminals, the violent, the worst of the worst.”

Border enforcement chief Tom Homan responded to the proposed restrictions during a Fox News appearance, promising substantial increases in federal personnel.

“Of course we’re going to increase manpower, a lot” if New York proceeds with the legislation, Homan declared.

“They can put up all the roadblocks they want, but we’re going to do this job,” he added.

The two officials previously met face-to-face at New York’s state Capitol earlier this year. While their discussion remained private, Hochul revealed Thursday that Homan had assured her “the era of the surges is over” during their conversation.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman opposed the governor’s initiative, arguing that his Long Island county’s partnership with ICE has effectively removed “bad people out of our community” while maintaining organized immigration enforcement procedures.

WASHINGTON — Despite President Donald Trump’s ongoing warnings that ‘Cuba is next’ and his suggestions about positioning American naval vessels near the Caribbean island, federal officials confirm no immediate military intervention against Havana is currently being planned.

Government sources involved in early-stage discussions with Cuban leadership told reporters they hold little hope that Cuba’s communist administration will agree to accept an American proposal worth tens of millions of dollars. The package includes humanitarian assistance, two years of complimentary Starlink internet service for Cuban citizens, farming support, and infrastructure development.

However, these officials noted that Cuba has not yet completely rejected the proposal, even after the Trump administration implemented additional economic penalties on Thursday targeting Havana. The aid package comes with requirements that Cuba’s government has historically opposed.

Speaking anonymously to discuss confidential negotiations, the sources emphasized that time remains for Cuba’s leadership to consider the offer. They warned that Trump maintains the flexibility to alter his approach and that military alternatives remain available.

The new economic penalties followed Trump’s executive order from last week that broadened his administration’s power to impose restrictions on Cuba. Both the Treasury and State departments announced these measures.

Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez characterized the sanctions as ‘collective punishment’ and criticized what he called the U.S. government’s ‘genocidal intent against Cuba.’

‘These actions rely on the assumption that the United States can impose its will on the world while threatening foreign citizens and businesses with illegitimate coercion,’ Rodríguez wrote on X.

During a Friday speech following the executive order signing, Trump referenced that ‘Cuba’s got problems’ and hinted at potential military demonstrations near the island.

He said one of the U.S. aircraft carriers on its way back from the Middle East could ‘come in, stop about 100 yards offshore, and they’ll say: Thank you very much. We give up.’

An official participating in the discussions explained that the expanded sanctions authority was designed to communicate to Cuban leaders that the Trump administration’s primary objective is ‘not regime change, but changing the regime’s failed policies.’

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose parents emigrated from Cuba and who has consistently opposed Cuba’s current leadership, has repeatedly stated that the island’s government has been unsuccessful. This week, he argued that Cuba’s economic system is broken and current leaders ‘can’t fix it.’

‘And the reason that they can’t fix it is not just because they’re communist. That’s bad enough,’ he told reporters Tuesday at the White House. ‘But they’re incompetent communists. The only thing worse than a communist is an incompetent one.’

Rubio is currently visiting Rome and Vatican City, scheduled to meet Pope Leo XIV on Thursday partly to address Cuban matters, where the Catholic Church maintains considerable influence.

One federal official described uncertainty about whether Cuba’s senior leadership would agree to American requirements, which encompass freeing political detainees, ending political and religious oppression, and allowing American private sector investment.

Simultaneously, the official indicated that opportunities for dialogue remain open that could benefit both nations given Cuba’s geographic closeness to America. The United States views China and Russia’s growing presence on the island as a national security concern, including intelligence gathering and logistical cooperation.

Cuban representatives firmly maintain that the country’s internal governance remains non-negotiable.

‘Negotiations on issues like regime change or removing the president are out of the question,’ Cuban Ambassador to the United Nations Ernesto Soberón Guzmán told reporters last week. ‘No internal affairs of Cuba are on the table.’

Guzmán also informed reporters last month that Havana would not comply with any American ‘ultimatums’ regarding political prisoner releases and that Cuban leadership is ‘preparing for all scenarios’ should Trump follow through on intervention threats.

The White House did not immediately respond when asked about potential military action concerning Cuba.

Communication between the Trump administration and Cuba has intensified, including an earlier meeting this year in St. Kitts and Nevis between Rubio and Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, who reportedly holds substantial influence in Havana as the grandson of former Cuban leader Raúl Castro.

More recently, two high-ranking State Department officials — Jeremy Lewin, who oversees all American foreign assistance, and Michael Kozak, the senior U.S. diplomat for Latin America — headed a delegation to Havana on April 10 and met with Castro’s grandson, according to one federal official familiar with the encounters.

The senior State Department participants had not been previously disclosed. This marked the first U.S. government aircraft to land in Cuba outside of the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay since 2016, during former President Barack Obama’s period of improved relations with the island.

The meeting was described as ‘professional and cordial’ but failed to yield concrete outcomes, leaving American delegates doubtful that Cuban leadership would consider even minor reforms that might improve worsening humanitarian circumstances, the official stated.

American officials have frequently dismissed Cuban assertions that the U.S. trade embargo and, more recently, the Trump administration’s energy restrictions are causing the country’s difficulties.

However, Cuba’s problems have worsened following the energy restrictions, implemented after the U.S. removed Nicolás Maduro as Venezuela’s leader in January, eliminating Cuba’s primary energy source.

Cuban officials have condemned American dismissal of their grievances.

‘Traveling 4,500 miles to meet with the Pope, supposedly to request his good offices in delivering U.S. humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people through the Church, while at the same time claiming that the blockade does not exist, is a blatant insult to human intelligence,’ Guzmán said Thursday in a statement.

Family members of Raphael Lemkin, the Polish Jewish scholar who created the word “genocide,” are calling on Pennsylvania state officials to examine a nonprofit organization that bears his name and has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.

The controversy involves a Pennsylvania-based charitable organization called the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, which claims to focus on preventing mass atrocities and protecting human security. Those opposing the group argue it has exploited Lemkin’s reputation to give credibility to statements critical of Israel. The organization has dismissed these claims and characterized the effort against it as politically motivated.

According to initial reporting by The Algemeiner, Joseph Lemkin, a descendant of Raphael Lemkin, joined forces with the European Jewish Association to petition Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and the state’s Bureau of Corporations and Charitable Organizations. Their complaint seeks formal action under Pennsylvania’s charitable organization laws rather than simply voicing public opposition to the institute’s stance.

The Washington Free Beacon subsequently revealed that over 100 academics specializing in Holocaust and genocide studies endorsed a letter backing the Lemkin family’s concerns. These scholars contend that the organization’s appropriation of the Lemkin name misrepresents the heritage of a Holocaust survivor who supported Zionism and contributed to developing the Genocide Convention.

The institute made genocide accusations against Israel soon after the October 7, 2023 Hamas assault on Israel, during which militants murdered approximately 1,200 individuals and kidnapped over 250 others. Israeli officials have firmly rejected any genocide allegations, maintaining that their military operations in Gaza constitute legitimate self-defense against Hamas. Meanwhile, South Africa’s genocide lawsuit against Israel continues at the International Court of Justice, which has implemented temporary protective orders but has yet to issue a final determination.

Efforts to strip the organization of its federal tax-exempt standing would encounter significant legal obstacles. The Internal Revenue Service manages federal 501(c)(3) designations, while Pennsylvania’s charitable oversight bureau handles state registration requirements and fundraising regulations. Typically, advocacy work alone, even when highly controversial, does not result in the loss of nonprofit tax benefits.

NEW YORK (AP) — Wealthy individuals who purchase expensive second residences in New York City while maintaining their primary residence elsewhere will face a new property tax under a preliminary agreement announced as part of Governor Kathy Hochul’s budget proposal Thursday.

The measure represents a compromise that falls short of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s broader goal of implementing sweeping income tax increases on New York’s wealthiest residents — a campaign promise that helped propel him to office with supporters chanting demands to “tax the rich.”

This proposed levy on multi-million-dollar secondary residences, commonly called pied-à-terres, emerges as Democratic leaders attempt to balance voter concerns about cost of living with maintaining positive relationships with the business sector ahead of upcoming midterm elections.

Opposition has come from various quarters, including influential business figures, Republican officials, and centrist Democrats, who argue that imposing additional taxes on wealthy individuals who own apartments and homes in New York without claiming them as primary residences will simply drive the ultra-rich away from the city.

While specific details remain under development, Hochul indicated the tax would target properties exceeding $5 million in value. The policy would exclusively affect second homes within New York City limits, excluding other wealthy enclaves across the state such as the Hamptons on Long Island.

Governor Hochul projected the tax would generate a minimum of $500 million in annual revenue for the city.

Following the governor’s announcement, state legislative leaders cautioned that significant negotiations remained ahead. Democratic Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie emphasized that “There is no budget deal,” noting that crucial financial components of the budget still required resolution.

The New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, which counts Mamdani among its members, criticized the budget proposal through text messages to supporters, arguing it inadequately addresses the city’s multi-billion-dollar budget shortfall or provides sufficient funding for essential social programs.

“Hochul is trying to shove a deal down our throats with no new taxes on the rich besides the pied-a-terre tax, which only fills 10% of NYC’s deficit,” stated organization co-chair Gustavo Gordillo.

Governor Hochul, a Democrat seeking reelection, has rejected broader tax increases on wealthy residents, expressing concerns that such measures could prompt affluent individuals and businesses to relocate to states with lower tax burdens.

“We were able to accomplish this extraordinary budget, with all these accomplishments, without raising statewide taxes at all,” Hochul explained to reporters Thursday.

Mayor Mamdani has characterized the pied-a-terre tax as a political win while continuing to advocate — sometimes through personal appeals — for additional targeted tax increases on the extremely wealthy.

In a publicity move last month designed to generate enthusiasm for the new tax proposal, the mayor filmed himself outside a luxury building where billionaire hedge fund executive Ken Griffin acquired a penthouse for approximately $239 million.

“When I ran for mayor, I said I was going to tax the rich,” Mamdani declared in the video, which garnered over 52 million views on X, before specifically naming Griffin. “Well today, we’re taxing the rich.”

Griffin subsequently expressed alarm about the video, describing it as “frightening” and potentially compromising his personal security. He referenced the recent shooting death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in the same area, allegedly by someone motivated by anger toward corporate greed. Griffin announced his company’s decision to expand operations in Miami.

“What the mayor of New York has made clear to my partners, and principally my New York partners, is we need to double down on our bet in Miami,” he commented at an economic conference in California this week. “Because we want to be in a state that embraces business.”

MINNEAPOLIS — A Minnesota resident who attacked Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar by dousing her with vinegar during a public meeting entered a guilty plea Thursday in federal court following negotiations with prosecutors.

Anthony Kazmierczak, 55, now faces sentencing after admitting to the assault charge.

Appearing in court wearing bright orange detention attire, Kazmierczak offered only limited details Thursday about the January 27th incident, which occurred during heightened tensions in Minneapolis following deadly encounters between federal agents and civilians during an immigration enforcement operation that brought thousands of officers to Minnesota.

When asked by U.S. District Judge Joan N. Ericksen to describe his recollection of the attack, Kazmierczak responded: “It’s fuzzy.”

During Omar’s January public forum, Kazmierczak suddenly stood up from his seat in the audience when the congresswoman demanded the removal of then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Court records indicate he discharged liquid from a syringe while yelling that Noem would remain in her position and accusing Omar of “splitting Minnesota apart.”

Security personnel immediately subdued Kazmierczak, who informed them the substance was vinegar.

“I didn’t want anybody to think she was in danger,” he stated Thursday.

Omar sustained no injuries and proceeded with the town hall following Kazmierczak’s detention.

Investigation revealed he had sprayed her with a combination of water and apple cider vinegar. Federal prosecutors charged him with assaulting a government official.

Legal filings reveal that Kazmierczak, who opposed Omar politically and posted content supporting President Donald Trump online, previously told an acquaintance years earlier that “somebody should kill” her.

Omar, who came to the United States as a Somali refugee, has frequently been targeted by Trump’s anti-immigration messaging. Following her election seven years ago, Trump suggested she should “go back” to Somalia. He has called her “garbage” and demanded investigations into her conduct.

Trump has additionally claimed Omar orchestrated the attack herself, telling ABC News, “She probably had herself sprayed, knowing her.”

During Thursday’s proceedings, Kazmierczak informed Judge Ericksen that he receives treatment for Parkinson’s disease and has been diagnosed with ADHD and a type of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Following his detention, his former legal counsel indicated he lacked access to necessary medications for Parkinson’s and other serious medical conditions.

Minnesota court files show Kazmierczak was found guilty of felony vehicle theft in 1989 and has faced multiple drunk driving arrests along with numerous traffic violations. Records also suggest he has experienced substantial financial difficulties, including two bankruptcy proceedings.

In online posts, Kazmierczak had attacked former President Joe Biden and labeled Democrats as “angry and liars.” He wrote that Trump seeks to make America “stronger and more prosperous.”

Congressional security data shows threats against lawmakers have risen in recent years, reaching a high point in 2021 after the January 6 Capitol riot by Trump supporters, then declining briefly before increasing again.

WASHINGTON — Following a phone conversation he characterized as positive with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, President Donald Trump issued an ultimatum Thursday via social media, warning that European Union products will be subject to increased tariff rates unless the 27-nation alliance finalizes last year’s trade agreement by Independence Day.

The president expressed frustration that the European Parliament has not yet completed approval of the trade framework negotiated in the previous year. The situation became more complex in February when the Supreme Court determined that Trump did not possess the constitutional power to declare an economic emergency as justification for the original tariffs that pressured the EU into negotiations.

In his social media statement, Trump wrote: “A promise was made that the EU would deliver their side of the Deal and, as per Agreement, cut their Tariffs to ZERO! I agreed to give her until our Country’s 250th Birthday or, unfortunately, their Tariffs would immediately jump to much higher levels.”

The United States Postal Service may soon allow private citizens to ship handguns through the mail system, marking a potential end to restrictions that have been in place for almost a century. The proposed regulation has drawn strong opposition from Democratic attorneys general across 24 states who submitted a formal letter of protest this week.

The current prohibition dates back to 1927 when lawmakers banned the postal service from handling concealable weapons unless shipped by licensed firearms dealers, a measure designed to reduce criminal activity. This past January, the Department of Justice challenged the nearly century-old restriction, declaring it unconstitutional and claiming it infringes upon Second Amendment rights, prompting officials to push for regulatory changes.

Justice Department officials stated that when Congress operates a shipping service, “the Second Amendment precludes it from refusing to ship constitutionally protected firearms to and from law-abiding citizens, even if they are not licensed manufacturers or dealers.”

The postal service introduced its proposed regulation last month, which would permit anyone to ship concealable weapons including pistols and revolvers through the mail. While the USPS already accepts certain firearms such as long-barrel rifles and shotguns for shipping, these must be unloaded and properly secured. The same safety measures would apply to handguns under the new proposal, acknowledging that firearm technology has advanced significantly since the original 1927 ban. Postal officials indicated they are currently examining public feedback submitted by Monday’s deadline before finalizing any modifications.

Nevada’s Attorney General Aaron Ford, who is seeking the governor’s office, expressed concern that the regulatory change would undermine state efforts to reduce gun violence. Nevada was the site of America’s most devastating mass shooting in recent history when a gunman fired from the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, resulting in 60 deaths. In response to that tragedy, Nevada enacted legislation requiring state-conducted background checks for most private firearm sales and transfers.

“Our state has suffered enough, and to suggest we make it easier for criminals and abusers to access firearms is a slap in the face to gun violence survivors and law enforcement,” Ford stated.

The proposed regulations would permit intrastate gun sales and shipments between individuals within the same state. Interstate shipping rules would be more restrictive, allowing people to mail firearms only to themselves in care of another person, with the requirement that the original owner personally retrieve the package. This provision aims to help travelers who want to transport firearms to other states for recreational activities.

Justice Department representatives argue that the complex web of varying state gun laws creates obstacles for lawful firearm transportation across state boundaries for legitimate activities including target practice, hunting, and personal protection. Officials noted that many people lack alternatives for traveling with firearms, making postal delivery the “only viable method of transportation.”

In their Monday letter, Ford and fellow attorneys general from approximately two dozen states called on the postal service to abandon the proposed rule, warning it would facilitate gun access for prohibited individuals such as convicted felons and domestic violence offenders. They also expressed concern that the change would complicate criminal investigations involving firearms. The state officials argued that the executive branch lacks authority to disregard congressional legislation and that the rule would supersede state firearms laws.

According to the attorneys general, state regulations encompass requirements such as firearms training courses, background investigations, and mental health evaluations. These safeguards are administered through state agencies that would be circumvented if the proposed rule takes effect. They contended there would be no mechanism to ensure compliance or prevent illegal interstate handgun shipments to unauthorized recipients.

The state officials also noted that law enforcement agencies would need to develop new tracking systems for postal firearm shipments, creating additional financial strain on state budgets.

Private shipping companies including UPS and FedEx currently limit firearm shipments to customers holding federal firearms licenses, such as importers, manufacturers, dealers, and collectors. FedEx policy requires licensed shippers to collaborate with company account representatives to secure shipping approval, according to their website.

The proposed change has received praise from firearms advocacy organizations while drawing criticism from gun safety groups.

National Rifle Association lobbying executive John Commerford hailed the development as a significant win for responsible gun owners.

“Thanks to President Trump and his administration, USPS will finally allow these firearms to be shipped under the same commonsense safety conditions as rifles and shotguns,” Commerford declared in a Wednesday statement.

Everytown for Gun Safety president John Feinblatt warned the rule change would transform the postal service into a “gun trafficking pipeline” for illegal weapons “while stripping law enforcement of the tools they need to prevent and investigate gun crime.”

ATLANTA — A federal appeals court based in Atlanta has struck down the Trump administration’s policy that denies bond hearings to immigrants facing deportation proceedings, adding to a growing disagreement among federal courts nationwide on this immigration enforcement strategy.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered its 2-1 decision on Wednesday. This marks the second federal appeals court to reject the policy, following a similar ruling by the 2nd Circuit in April. However, the 8th and 5th circuit courts have previously supported the administration’s approach that took effect in July. Adding to the confusion, a 7th Circuit panel issued a three-way split decision Tuesday, with judges reaching different conclusions on the matter.

Given the widening disagreement among federal circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court may need to step in to settle the dispute.

The Atlanta court’s decision arose from cases involving two Mexican nationals who had been residing in the United States without legal status since 2019 and 2015. Both men were detained during traffic stops in Florida in September and subsequently entered into removal proceedings.

Under the Department of Homeland Security’s current approach, bond hearings are being refused for individuals in immigration custody, including those who have lived in the country for extended periods without any criminal background. Before this policy change, most non-citizens without criminal records who weren’t apprehended at the border could request a bond hearing while their immigration matters proceeded through the courts.

Bonds were frequently approved when individuals weren’t considered likely to flee. Mandatory custody was typically limited to people who had recently crossed into the U.S.

Senior Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, nominated by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, authored the majority opinion with support from Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum, an Obama appointee. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, appointed by Trump, wrote the dissenting opinion.

The majority decision stated they were “unpersuaded by the Government’s re-interpretation” of federal law provisions that the administration claims authorize indefinite detention without bond for people “seeking admission” to the country.

“Simply put, the language that Congress has chosen to use does not grant to the Executive unfettered authority to detain, without the possibility of bond, every unadmitted alien present in the country,” the court wrote. The judges noted that based on the statutory language, “it appears to us that Congress has instead preserved the longstanding border-interior distinction for the purposes of detention, a position it has taken for over a hundred years.”

Judge Lagoa disagreed with her colleagues, stating, “There is no dispute that unlawfully present aliens are applicants for admission pursuant to the deeming provision.”

“The majority’s argument amounts to the claim that the provision fits arriving aliens better. Maybe so,” she wrote, while adding that “a more comfortable fit does not allow us to read an exception” into existing law.

Government attorneys have maintained that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 justifies the mandatory detention approach. That legislation streamlined deportation procedures for recent arrivals lacking proper documentation, though separate laws permitted people already residing in the country to request bond from immigration judges.

However, Todd Lyons, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, announced in July that all individuals in removal proceedings would receive the same treatment as recent border crossers.

Without access to immigration judges for bond requests, detained individuals are filing habeas corpus petitions in federal court to contest their confinement. This has created an overwhelming caseload for federal courts, with over 30,000 lawsuits submitted by people held without bond as the Trump administration implements widespread deportation efforts.

Former FBI Director James Comey is asking a federal judge to cancel his scheduled Monday court appearance in North Carolina, arguing the hearing is redundant since he has already surrendered to authorities in Virginia on charges stemming from an alleged threat against President Donald Trump.

Federal prosecutors filed a two-count criminal indictment against Comey last week, accusing him of “knowingly and willfully” making threats against Trump through an Instagram photograph showing seashells arranged to form the numbers “86 47.”

According to the indictment, investigators believe the image was intended as a threat against Trump, who serves as the nation’s 47th president. Comey maintains he discovered the shell formation on a beach and viewed it as political commentary rather than incitement to violence, adding that he deleted the post after realizing some viewers interpreted it as threatening.

Defense attorneys filed paperwork Thursday requesting the cancellation of Monday’s hearing in Greenville, North Carolina federal court. They emphasized that Comey has already completed the surrender process and appeared before a Virginia judge near his residence, with Justice Department officials agreeing to the request.

This marks the second criminal case Trump’s Justice Department has initiated against Comey, who has long been viewed as an opponent by the Republican president. A previous unrelated case charging Comey with providing false testimony to Congress was thrown out after a judge determined the prosecutor lacked proper appointment authority.

Several legal analysts have raised doubts about whether prosecutors can satisfy the demanding burden of proof required to show Comey genuinely intended his social media post as a threat. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche claims investigators possess additional evidence beyond the Instagram image alone, though he has declined to provide specifics.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary, which The Associated Press uses as its standard reference, defines “86” as slang meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of” or “to refuse service to.” The dictionary notes that while the term has recently been extended to mean “to kill,” this definition is not officially included due to its limited and recent usage.

PORTLAND, Maine — Maine’s Republican Senator Susan Collins has publicly revealed she lives with a benign essential tremor, marking the first time she has addressed this health matter during her extensive political tenure as she campaigns for reelection in a competitive Senate battle.

Collins confirmed her condition to Maine’s WCSH-TV on Wednesday following inquiries about her health sparked by recent video appearances, including footage from her campaign launch.

The medical condition results in shaking that affects Collins’ hands, head, and voice, something she has experienced throughout her almost 30-year Senate tenure. The disorder impacts millions of Americans beyond age 40 and “does not interfere” with her professional duties, Collins explained in a Thursday statement to The Associated Press. She emphasized it is not a progressive neurological disease.

“The tremor is occasionally inconvenient, and sometimes the subject of cruel comments online, but it does not hinder my ability to work and, as I said, is something that I have lived with for decades,” her statement read.

Candidate health and age have become prominent topics in major elections after Democratic President Joe Biden chose not to pursue reelection in 2024 at 81 years old. Similar concerns persist regarding Republican President Donald Trump, age 79, who has recently appeared with hand bruising, sometimes covered with cosmetics. The White House confirmed last year that Trump received a diagnosis of chronic venous insufficiency.

Collins faces reelection in a seat that Democrats must win to potentially regain Senate control. Her expected challenger is Democrat Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and military veteran, following Democratic Governor Janet Mills’ campaign suspension last week. Age has emerged as a campaign factor, with Collins at 73 and Mills at 78 being more than three decades senior to the 41-year-old Platner.

Platner has been transparent about his own health challenges from early in his campaign. He has discussed ongoing pain in his shoulder and knees resulting from combat duty, and has shared his post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis following wartime service. Platner holds a 100% disability designation from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs while maintaining his work as an oyster farmer.

“There are a lot of disabled combat veterans, or just disabled vets, at 100%, who still work,” Platner explained to WCSH last year. “It’s a very normal thing.”

Collins began her Senate service in 1996 and confirmed in her statement that the condition has been present throughout her tenure. The tremor has been observable during Collins’ debates and numerous public engagements over the years.

Serving as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Collins has taken a leading role in the chamber’s numerous budget battles this Congress, frequently directing floor discussions and delivering the GOP’s final arguments. She regularly speaks with media in the Capitol corridors. Her record of consecutive Senate votes has reached 9,966, representing the second-longest unbroken voting record in the chamber’s history.

Tremors occur when nerve signals fail to communicate properly with specific muscles. Essential tremor, also known as benign essential tremor, ranks among the most prevalent movement conditions, according to the National Institutes of Health.

The likelihood of developing this condition grows with age, though at least half of instances are hereditary, indicating family history, and these typically emerge earlier in life. The condition nearly always includes hand trembling or shaking but may also impact the head, voice, or legs.

WASHINGTON – Federal appeals court judges voiced skepticism Thursday about the Pentagon’s efforts to discipline Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly over public comments he made encouraging military personnel to reject unlawful commands.

During more than an hour of arguments before a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the judges questioned the government’s position against Kelly, a former Navy captain.

“These are people who serve their country. Many of them put their lives on the line,” Circuit Judge Florence Pan questioned a Justice Department attorney. “You’re saying that they have to give up their retired status in order to say something that is a textbook example — taught at West Point and the Naval Academy — that you can disobey illegal orders?”

Speaking to reporters outside the Washington courthouse following the proceedings, Kelly emphasized the broader implications. “This was a day in court not just for me, but for the First Amendment rights of millions of us,” Kelly said.

Neither the Pentagon nor White House provided immediate responses when asked for comment.

Kelly filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon in January, claiming the Trump administration’s decision to strip his rank and cut his retirement benefits constituted retaliation that violated First Amendment free speech protections.

The Pentagon challenged a February ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who issued a temporary order preventing the administration from proceeding with its disciplinary action against Kelly.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth initiated sanctions against Kelly, a former astronaut, following Kelly’s participation in a November 2025 video. The recording came amid growing controversy over the Trump administration’s use of National Guard forces in American cities and approval of deadly force against suspected Latin American drug trafficking vessels. In the footage, Kelly declared: “Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders.”

During Thursday’s hearing, the government’s representative argued that constitutional protections don’t extend to military officers who encourage defiance of legitimate orders, regardless of retirement status.

“It’s very clear that this is about a pattern and totality of conduct, not any one line or any one statement taken in isolation,” Justice Department lawyer John Bailey told the court.

The Trump administration maintains that retired officers continue as part of the military structure, remain eligible for reactivation, and possess influence over active service members.

Kelly’s legal team argued the Pentagon’s response constituted punishment for constitutionally protected political expression on issues of public importance.

“The punishments imposed on Senator Kelly are textbook retaliation against disfavored speech,” Kelly’s attorney, Benjamin Mizer, told the appeals panel. “The censure letter says on its face that it’s targeting the Senator for his public statements.”

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency under the Trump administration plans to introduce changes that would relax certain drinking water regulations for PFAS chemicals established during the Biden presidency, according to a top agency official.

Jessica Kramer, who leads the EPA’s Office of Water, announced Thursday at a Washington conference that the agency intends to eliminate and reconsider specific restrictions she claims the previous administration implemented incorrectly. This action follows through on commitments the EPA made a year earlier.

The upcoming proposal will initiate the official process to roll back portions of the nation’s first comprehensive PFAS drinking water standards, which Biden administration officials determined could reduce risks of heart disease, certain cancer types, and low birth weight in newborns.

While complete details remain under wraps, agency leaders have previously indicated they would eliminate regulations covering three PFAS categories, including GenX chemicals discovered in North Carolina waters. The agency also plans to remove a standard addressing combinations of multiple PFAS types before reconsidering these restrictions.

‘We need drinking water rules that are legally defensible. We need drinking water regulations that are not susceptible to legal challenge because the explicit process in the Safe Drinking Water Act wasn’t followed. And so that is a huge concern,’ Kramer stated during the conference focused on ensuring universal access to clean drinking water and wastewater services.

Kramer explained the goal involves restarting the regulatory process while adhering to proper legal procedures. The Biden administration faced criticism for allegedly bypassing correct legal protocols by rushing regulations on less common PFAS types that are now targeted for elimination.

The agency maintains its dedication to supporting water utilities in reducing PFAS contamination through technical guidance and billions in additional funding to help with expensive and complex treatment systems required to eliminate these chemicals.

The previous administration’s regulations established stringent limits of 4 parts per trillion for two prevalent PFAS types known as PFOA and PFOS. The EPA plans to maintain these standards while extending the compliance deadline by two years to 2031.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin previously described the deadline extension as ‘common-sense flexibility’ when the agency first announced this approach.

‘This will support water systems across the country, including small systems in rural communities, as they work to address these contaminants,’ he stated at that time.

Regarding broader drinking water policy, the Trump administration has committed to maintaining strong lead reduction standards for tap water, contrasting with their approach to environmental protections for coal and other polluting energy industries.

‘Where they may have taken a wrecking ball to those rules, this is a little more surgical and measured in part because of the resonance of these issues among voters,’ said Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs with the Environmental Working Group nonprofit.

According to the organization, requiring utilities to treat multiple PFAS types helps ensure other potentially dangerous substances are also filtered from water supplies.

Benesh also questioned the legality of the proposed changes, noting that the Safe Drinking Water Act, which gives EPA authority to regulate drinking water contaminants, prohibits officials from creating weaker regulations than existing ones.

The announcement comes as the agency faces pressure from the Make America Healthy Again movement regarding PFAS and pesticide issues. This group, supported by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., advocates against corporate environmental damage.

Public comment periods will be available before any final changes take effect.

WASHINGTON – According to a Thursday report from Semafor, the Trump administration is reaching out to chief executives from several major American corporations to join the president during his scheduled visit to China next week.

The potential business delegation includes top leaders from technology giant Nvidia, iPhone maker Apple, and oil company Exxon Mobil, along with aerospace manufacturer Boeing, the report indicates.

Additional corporate executives receiving invitations include those from chip manufacturer Qualcomm, investment firm Blackstone, financial services company Citigroup, and payment processor Visa, according to the same reporting.

When contacted for verification, White House officials have not yet provided a response to requests for comment regarding the reported corporate invitations.

A group of twelve Democratic senators has formally requested answers from U.S. Central Command regarding American involvement in Israel’s controversial evacuation zone policies across Lebanon and Iran, raising concerns about potential violations of international law.

The inquiry highlights the growing divide within the Democratic Party regarding Israel’s military operations and U.S. support for them.

Throughout the ongoing conflicts with Iran and the Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, Israeli forces have consistently released maps designating extensive territorial areas while instructing all residents within these zones to evacuate immediately. This strategy mirrors tactics previously employed in Gaza.

According to the senators, these broad displacement orders have “been used to permanently displace people and destroy homes and towns” and noted that civilians who chose to remain in designated areas have been killed in subsequent military strikes.

Vermont Senator Peter Welch spearheaded the May 4th correspondence to CENTCOM commander Admiral Brad Cooper, obtained by The Associated Press, asserting that Israel’s unilateral mass evacuation declarations in Lebanon and Iran “likely contravene international laws the United States has helped develop around humane warfare.”

Additional signers include Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin.

The correspondence seeks clarification on whether U.S. forces have coordinated military objectives with Israeli forces during recent Iranian conflicts, if they provided support or intelligence for Israel’s evacuation zone implementation in Lebanon and Iran, and whether CENTCOM approved U.S. military backing for targeting individuals or infrastructure within these zones. The letter also inquires about any military review of the practice’s legality.

Israeli military officials declined comment regarding the letter, while CENTCOM has not yet responded to inquiries.

Israeli authorities have previously stated that evacuation maps serve to protect civilian populations from harm, noting that Hezbollah has established fighters, tunnel networks and weapons throughout civilian areas in southern Lebanon, launching hundreds of drones and missiles into northern Israel without advance warning.

Political observers describe this action as part of a broader transformation in Democratic Party leadership’s position on U.S. military aid to Israel. Democrats have also criticized the Trump administration’s military involvement in the Iranian conflict alongside Israel.

This letter arrived nearly three weeks following more than three dozen Democrats backing Sanders’ initiative to halt arms sales to Israel, demonstrating increasing party dissatisfaction with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the conflicts in Gaza and Iran.

Both resolutions aimed at blocking U.S. sales of bulldozers and bombs to Israel faced unanimous Republican opposition and were defeated 40-59 and 36-63.

Jon Finer, former deputy national security adviser under President Joe Biden, explained that recent Democratic senator actions reflect “growing concern about Israeli conduct of various wars that cause civilian harm and U.S. complicity in that” throughout the Democratic Party spectrum.

When asked about the timing of these Democratic actions, rather than during the initial outbreak of Gaza and Israel-Hezbollah conflicts under the Democratic Biden administration, Finer stated: “our operational integration with Israel appears to be growing, which is part of it, but the truth is the Democratic base has been moving in this direction for some time and Washington has been catching up.”

Andrew Miller, former senior State Department official for Israel and Palestinian Affairs, characterized the letter as “represents a shift among congressional Democrats moving from questions of the legality of Israeli military operations to concerns about the complicity of the U.S. military.”

“It demonstrates that Democrats are taking international law very seriously and that is a welcome development,” Miller added.

Since the current Israel-Hezbollah conflict began March 2nd, Israel has issued numerous evacuation warnings throughout Lebanon. More than one million Lebanese residents have abandoned their homes during this conflict.

Similar warnings have been issued to Iranian civilians during both the 12-day Israel-Iran conflict last year and the U.S.-Israeli military action launched against Iran February 28th. In one instance last year, they warned 300,000 Tehran residents to evacuate the Iranian capital.

Wednesday saw Israeli military Arabic-language spokesperson Avichay Adraee issue evacuation notices to residents of 12 southern Lebanese villages, citing Hezbollah’s use of these locations for launching attacks. These warnings occurred despite a ceasefire nominally established April 17th, though Israel and Hezbollah continue daily attacks.

The senators emphasized that declaring evacuation zones does not release Israeli and U.S. forces “from the absolute legal responsibility to determine that each individual person or civilian facility targeted by drones, jets, and gunfire is, in fact, a military target.” They connected the zone usage to “the deaths of thousands of civilians,” characterizing them as “kill zones.”

Responding to Associated Press inquiries last month, Israeli military officials stated they issue warnings through phone calls, text messages, radio broadcasts, social media and air-dropped leaflets, following “principles of distinction, proportionality and feasible precautions” under international law.

WASHINGTON — Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. held a press conference early in his tenure to announce plans for eliminating synthetic food dyes from American food products.

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary began the event by stating his agency would be “removing all petroleum-based food dyes” from the nation’s food supply. However, the details remained unclear until Kennedy disclosed in the closing moments that officials had reached “an understanding” with food manufacturers to voluntarily discontinue use of these chemicals. According to an FDA statement, a “national standard and timeline” for completion would be established soon.

Over a year has passed since that announcement, yet the FDA has not released any comprehensive, science-based regulatory documentation required to establish safety concerns with the approximately six commonly used dyes. The FDA instead maintains a web-based list of companies that have committed to eliminating these chemicals.

This approach to food dye regulation exemplifies the administration’s strategy for various health initiatives. Rather than pursuing the lengthy federal rulemaking process that often spans multiple presidential terms, officials under Republican President Donald Trump have adopted a different method: make broad policy announcements first, then address regulatory details afterward.

“It speaks volumes that the administration has yet to produce a document articulating the scientific basis for the voluntary request,” said Susan Mayne, a Yale University public health expert and former director of the FDA’s food program. The FDA’s website still displays the government’s longstanding position that “the totality of scientific evidence” demonstrates no connection between synthetic dyes and health issues.

“If FDA has changed its position, then FDA should document why and pursue a ban,” Mayne said.

A Kennedy spokesperson stated the administration has employed “multiple approaches” to achieve more rapid progress on food dyes “than at any point in the past.”

“FDA engaged industry early in this effort to encourage timely changes while continuing its scientific and regulatory work,” said Emily Hilliard of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “The agency maintains its role in evaluating safety and will continue to use its regulatory authorities, guidance, and review processes as appropriate.”

The absence of formal regulation development is especially notable at the FDA. Federal law requires the agency to avoid announcing major policy changes through press releases, speeches or other unofficial channels.

However, numerous policy shifts from Makary and his team have first appeared in medical journal opinion pieces, television appearances or social media posts, including new limitations on COVID-19 vaccines and other treatments.

Conventionally, such changes would first be published in the Federal Register, allowing consumers, experts, and companies opportunities to provide feedback and suggest modifications to FDA proposals.

Equally surprising as the agency’s departure from standard rulemaking is the minimal resistance from the powerful companies under FDA oversight.

Throughout decades, the FDA has faced hundreds of legal challenges from pharmaceutical companies, pharmacies, tobacco manufacturers and others claiming the agency failed to follow legally mandated procedures for new regulations and guidelines.

Yet pharmaceutical companies and other multibillion-dollar corporations are remaining passive, at least currently.

“Does the government have the ability to basically bully companies?” asked Dan Troy, the FDA’s former chief counsel. “Yes, and I think we’re seeing that.”

A significant policy shift occurred last May when Makary and then-FDA vaccine director Dr. Vinay Prasad published a medical journal piece announcing the FDA would discontinue routine approval of COVID-19 vaccines for healthy adults under 65 and children without underlying medical conditions. For approval in that demographic, vaccine manufacturers would need to conduct extensive studies that many experts believe may not be practical in the current post-pandemic landscape.

Similar to other vaccine decisions, Makary and Prasad circumvented the agency’s external advisors, who traditionally provided consultation on major vaccine-related choices. Makary contends FDA advisory panels often exhibit bias and require excessive time and resources to organize.

“We had all of this experience looking at the safety of how these vaccines work, and then these two cowboys come and say: ‘We’re going to make this policy’,” said Dr. Kathryn Edwards, who previously chaired the FDA’s vaccine panel.

Edwards and other specialists suggest the lack of resistance from vaccine manufacturers may reflect the substantial authority the FDA wields over them.

“Ultimately, you need the FDA to license your product,” said Edwards, a retired vaccine researcher at Vanderbilt University. “If you’re going to try and buck the FDA — especially in this environment — the likelihood of your product getting a positive review is going to be pretty low.”

Earlier this year, the FDA temporarily declined to review a new mRNA influenza vaccine from Moderna. The agency changed its position following objections from the company and the White House.

Additional factors may explain why typically litigation-prone companies are not confronting the agency.

Several FDA initiatives could potentially benefit companies, including a program providing expedited reviews for medications favored by the Trump administration.

Even apparently restrictive changes may lack permanence since the agency is not pursuing formal processes to establish them as federal regulations or guidelines. This includes rigorous new approval standards for CAR-T therapies previously authorized for various cancer types based on preliminary data.

“Anything that this administration does that they don’t embody in law can easily be undone by a future administration,” Troy said.

Nevertheless, with over two years remaining in Trump’s term, indications suggest some companies may be prepared to voice concerns.

The FDA began publishing rejection letters for disapproved medications last year. This information was previously confidential and belonged to pharmaceutical companies.

Last month, an unidentified pharmaceutical company submitted a formal petition challenging this practice, noting the FDA had provided “only a two-sentence explanation addressing its purported legal authority” to release the correspondence.

While the petition lacks the authority of a lawsuit, it uses identical language found in numerous legal challenges against the agency, describing the FDA’s action as “arbitrary and capricious.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio conducted diplomatic talks at the Vatican Thursday, meeting with Pope Leo XIV in an effort to repair strained relations following President Donald Trump’s public criticism of the pontiff over Middle East policy.

The diplomatic mission included a 2½-hour session where Rubio sat down with both Pope Leo XIV and Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin to address tensions that have emerged between the Trump administration and the Holy See.

Meanwhile, Iran announced it is examining new American proposals to conclude the ongoing conflict, while Trump issued fresh warnings of military strikes unless Tehran agrees to terms that would reopen the strategically important Strait of Hormuz for global shipping. These developments come after several days of conflicting signals from the Trump administration regarding its war strategy.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott confirmed that Rubio and the Pope covered Middle Eastern developments “and topics of mutual interest in the Western Hemisphere. The meeting underscored the strong relationship between the United States and the Holy See and their shared commitment to promoting peace and human dignity,” Pigott stated.

Regarding the separate discussion with Cardinal Parolin, Pigott noted the diplomats addressed “ongoing humanitarian efforts in the Western Hemisphere and efforts to achieve a durable peace in the Middle East. The discussion reflected the enduring partnership between the United States and the Holy See in advancing religious freedom,” according to the statement.

The Vatican visit by Rubio, who practices Catholicism, was arranged to address ongoing friction after Trump’s public attacks on Pope Leo XIV regarding the Chicago-born pontiff’s stance on Iran and nuclear weapons policy. The Pope has responded by defending his biblical message of peace and challenging Trump’s characterizations of his positions.

Cardinal Parolin defended the Pope on the eve of Rubio’s arrival, stating in diplomatic language: “Attacking him like that or criticizing what he does seems a bit strange to me, to say the least.” Parolin confirmed that Washington had initiated the request for Rubio’s audience and that the Pope remained willing to continue diplomatic dialogue.

The Trump administration’s messaging on the Iran situation has shifted dramatically in recent days, moving from declarations that a fragile ceasefire was maintaining stability and military actions had concluded, to renewed threats of bombing campaigns against the Islamic Republic.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth began Tuesday by describing how U.S. forces were safeguarding stranded vessels attempting to navigate the Strait of Hormuz. Later that day, Rubio announced at the White House that the military mission was “concluded” and objectives had been met, while simultaneously noting Trump continued pursuing a “path of peace” requiring Iranian agreement to reopen the critical shipping lane.

By Tuesday night, Trump declared the ship protection effort was suspended pending potential agreement negotiations. Wednesday morning brought another warning that bombing operations would restart if Tehran rejected American conditions.

Iran’s announcement that it is studying the newest American proposals for ending the two-month conflict provided some optimism to international markets Thursday, despite U.S. military forces firing on an Iranian oil tanker that attempted to break through an American port blockade just hours earlier.

Trump posted on social media that the prolonged war might soon conclude and that disrupted oil and natural gas shipments could resume, contingent on Iran accepting an undisclosed agreement he referenced.

“If they don’t agree, the bombing starts,” Trump wrote.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas reached a historic benchmark Thursday, securing his place as the second longest-tenured justice in the nation’s highest court’s history after serving more than 34 years on the bench.

Thomas, now 77 and the court’s first baby boomer member, has evolved from being considered an outsider to wielding tremendous power within the conservative legal establishment during the past ten years, playing a key role in major decisions affecting gun rights, reproductive access, and electoral laws.

Liberal Justice William O. Douglas remains the only member to serve longer than Thomas. Should Thomas continue in his position, he would surpass Douglas’s record by 2028, though he has shown no indication of stepping down.

“I think he’s more energized and excited now than when I first met him,” explained John Yoo, a University of California, Berkeley law professor who previously worked under Republican President George W. Bush and clerked for Thomas thirty years ago.

Thomas joined the court in 1991 following turbulent confirmation proceedings that featured accusations of sexual harassment. In recent years, his receipt of expensive vacations has sparked significant ethical concerns. Despite these controversies, he has transformed from rarely speaking during oral arguments to frequently asking initial questions and authoring a pivotal decision that broadened Second Amendment protections.

With the addition of three conservative justices appointed by former Republican President Donald Trump, Thomas now leads a supermajority that has eliminated constitutional abortion protections, dismantled affirmative action in higher education admissions, and significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act.

“The court has radically moved in his direction over the course of his time on the court,” observed Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan. Thomas’s senior status allows him to assign opinion-writing responsibilities when he’s part of a majority that excludes Chief Justice John Roberts, which can influence other justices’ votes during private deliberations, Karlan noted.

Beyond his courtroom duties, Thomas has built substantial influence through his extensive network of former law clerks, many of whom served in the Trump administration and increasingly occupy federal judgeships.

“That is an important legacy that he will leave,” stated Sarah Konsky, director of the Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “Even as justices’ own time on the court winds down, significant influence lives on through their clerks.”

Thomas shows no signs of slowing down. During a recent address, he connected America’s founding principles to a conservative philosophy of restricted government while criticizing progressive ideology in remarks that opponents viewed as inappropriate and biased. However, his comments received enthusiastic applause from the University of Texas audience.

As the court’s second Black justice, Thomas has now served longer than Justice Stephen J. Field, who was selected by Lincoln during the Civil War era and remained the sole 10th justice until 1897.

For Thomas, this milestone represents a dramatic journey from the confirmation hearings where Republican President George H.W. Bush’s nomination nearly failed due to Anita Hill’s harassment allegations, which Thomas vehemently rejected.

More recently, Thomas has faced criticism for accepting unreported luxury travel from a Republican major donor and his wife’s conservative political involvement, including her support of false claims about the 2020 election being fraudulent. The justice maintained he had no obligation to report trips with friends and rejected demands to remove himself from election-related cases.

However, recent years have also featured some of Thomas’s most impactful judicial work, particularly his 2022 ruling establishing that Americans generally possess the right to publicly carry firearms. The justice declined to comment on his tenure when contacted.

Scott Gerber, author of “First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas,” noted that Thomas’s legal philosophy has remained remarkably stable throughout his career. While the court’s majority has shifted toward his positions, he continues writing notable dissenting opinions.

“He’s incredibly consistent,” Gerber observed. Previously famous for writing solitary dissents, “now he writes majority opinions.”

WASHINGTON – Democratic primary races across the country are witnessing an unprecedented wave of candidates making their opposition to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee a central campaign theme as they attempt to defeat established party members who have received backing from the powerful lobbying organization.

This emerging pattern demonstrates deepening fractures within the Democratic Party regarding America’s Israel policy, as ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Iran create internal party strife before November’s midterm elections. The divisions may also hamper Democratic efforts to take advantage of Republican weaknesses related to economic concerns and public opposition to military involvement in Iran.

Established in the 1950s, AIPAC has maintained its position as one of the capital’s most powerful foreign policy advocacy organizations, channeling millions in campaign contributions to candidates who support robust U.S.-Israel ties while pushing for Israeli military assistance, Iranian sanctions, and legislation favorable to Israeli interests.

More than 100 Democratic candidates have received endorsements from two organizations opposing AIPAC: Track AIPAC, which monitors the group’s political expenditures, and Justice Democrats, a progressive political action committee. These endorsed candidates have committed to refusing financial support from pro-Israel organizations like AIPAC and opposing American military assistance to Israel.

“There’s a lot of AIPAC money that will now go to Republican candidates as a result of this,” stated Frank Lowenstein, who previously served as a special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations during Democratic President Barack Obama’s term. Lowenstein currently works as a policy fellow at J Street, a competing pro-Israel lobbying organization that criticizes Israel’s current government.

According to a Reuters analysis of candidate questionnaire responses, 73 of the 102 anti-AIPAC endorsed candidates are running against current Democratic Congress members who have accepted AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby support.

AIPAC spokesperson Deryn Sousa expressed that the organization takes pride in “helping the mainstream of the Democratic Party by helping keep far-left, anti-Israel fringe candidates out of Congress.”

“AIPAC and our millions of Democratic members will be active throughout this cycle and future cycles to help elect candidates who support a strong U.S.-Israel partnership,” Sousa stated.

Sousa placed blame for internal Democratic tensions not on AIPAC but on “people trying to drive millions of pro‑Israel Democrats out of the party.”

Traditional Democratic Israel supporters point to American national security concerns connected to Israeli security, longstanding bipartisan support, and electoral considerations when defending AIPAC involvement in competitive congressional districts.

Progressive and moderate Democrats remain split on how extensively the United States should support Israeli security measures. A March survey conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that approximately 80% of Democratic voters and Democratic-leaning independents hold negative views of Israel.

With hundreds of Democratic candidates competing in party primaries this year to determine November election nominees, the electoral consequences of the AIPAC controversy remain uncertain as most races have yet to occur.

Two endorsed candidates are mounting competitive U.S. Senate campaigns in Maine and Michigan, contests that will influence which party controls the upper chamber. Both have received Track AIPAC endorsements and actively criticize Israel and AIPAC.

According to OpenSecrets analysis of Federal Election Commission records, AIPAC and its supporters contributed nearly $25 million to Democratic congressional candidates before the 2024 election and over $16 million to Republicans.

However, Israel’s Gaza bombardment has transformed Democratic politics, creating opposition among predominantly younger voters and deepening generational divisions within the party.

While no comprehensive count exists for Democratic candidates who incorporated anti-AIPAC positions into their 2024 campaigns, Track AIPAC reports that this year’s endorsement numbers represent roughly an eightfold increase from two years prior.

Track AIPAC endorsed 12 Democratic candidates before the 2024 election. Justice Democrats, who endorsed no new primary challengers two years ago, have endorsed 15 new challengers this cycle – nine against Democratic incumbents and six in open congressional seats.

During Reuters interviews, six Democratic candidates opposing AIPAC charged the organization with supporting what they characterized as genocide in Gaza and illegal warfare against Iran.

Israel rejects genocide allegations, maintaining it works to minimize civilian casualties while Hamas operates among civilian populations. Both Israel and the United States dispute claims that their Iran operations are illegal, citing objectives including regime change and preventing Tehran’s nuclear weapons development.

AIPAC spokesperson Sousa described the genocide accusations against Israel as “a legally baseless blood libel.”

Anti-AIPAC candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier is challenging U.S. Representative Adriano Espaillat, a New York Democrat. OpenSecrets analysis shows Espaillat received over $133,000 from AIPAC and supporters this election cycle and $181,000 in the 2024 election.

Chevalier accused AIPAC of “pushing our representatives to be complicit in genocide, and pushing us towards this war with Iran.”

Reginald Johnson, an Espaillat campaign spokesperson, said the congressman supports both Israel’s right to exist and Palestinian statehood while opposing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s regional military expansion and the Iran conflict.

Democratic tensions over AIPAC and Israel became visible at a Michigan Democrats’ April 19 convention during a competitive Democratic primary for a U.S. Senate nomination.

When Democratic U.S. Representative Haley Stevens, a Senate candidate, appeared on stage, party activists in attendance booed and heckled her. OpenSecrets data shows she has received over $220,000 from AIPAC and supporters this election cycle.

As Stevens left the stage, audience members stood and chanted “Shame on you,” according to Reuters review of event video.

Arik Wolk, a Stevens campaign spokesperson, said the congresswoman supported the Gaza ceasefire that began last October. “She believes that we must have peace in the region,” Wolk stated. The ceasefire has remained unstable with periodic violence outbreaks.

Steve Israel, a Jewish former Democratic congressman and previous Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee head, characterized these tensions as symptoms of broader concerning party dynamics.

“As younger activists move into the Democratic Party infrastructure and elected office, the party energizes more towards the left. That creates proxy battles, such as whether or not a candidate accepts support from AIPAC.”

He described such conflicts as “self-defeating litmus tests.”

The Democratic National Committee, the party’s governing organization, did not directly respond to Reuters questions about AIPAC-related tensions.

Some Democratic strategists express concern that Republicans could exploit these internal conflicts in election campaigns, as Republicans have generally supported Israel while criticizing Democrats who oppose U.S. assistance.

Kiersten Pels, a Republican National Committee spokesperson, accused Democrats of permitting “a dangerous strain of pro-terrorist, anti-American extremism to take root in their party, which will turn off swing voters in the midterms.”

MINNEAPOLIS – A massive immigration enforcement operation that deployed thousands of federal agents to Minnesota significantly disrupted the prosecution of serious crimes including gun violence and drug trafficking, according to a Reuters analysis of federal court documents.

The operation, which President Donald Trump promoted as a crucial public safety initiative targeting violent undocumented immigrants, instead caused widespread disruption to routine federal law enforcement activities, court records and interviews with ten current and former law enforcement officials revealed.

Federal prosecutors filed charges against just eight individuals for gun or drug crimes from January through April, a dramatic decrease from 77 similar cases during the same timeframe last year. Total felony prosecutions also fell to 90, roughly half the previous year’s number.

Among those felony cases were 39 individuals, including journalist Don Lemon, charged with disrupting a church service while protesting the immigration enforcement. An additional 17 criminal cases involved immigration violations like illegal re-entry after deportation. These numbers exclude deportation proceedings, which occur in separate immigration courts rather than criminal court.

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, Minneapolis’s chief local prosecutor, revealed to Reuters that the federal prosecutor’s office has become so weakened by staff departures and immigration enforcement duties that federal agents now bring complex cases to her office – an unusual practice for federal investigators.

“You can’t tell me that sex trafficking and drug trafficking and that kind of thing is less important than people going into a church to protest,” Moriarty said. “It’s a public safety issue that they’re not doing the types of prosecutions they should be doing.”

Moriarty refused to specify which cases federal investigators transferred to her office, citing concerns about damaging relationships with federal agencies.

The immigration enforcement effort became a national controversy as approximately 3,000 agents flooded Minneapolis streets beginning in December. Agents removed individuals from vehicles and schools for deportation and fatally shot two U.S. citizen protesters, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, generating nationwide criticism that ultimately forced the administration to withdraw from Minneapolis.

This local enforcement slowdown mirrors a broader national trend of shifting crime-fighting resources toward immigration enforcement, frequently targeting undocumented individuals without criminal histories. Nationally, criminal immigration violation charges reached their highest level in at least twenty years, while drug crime prosecutions hit their lowest point.

Minnesota U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen declined to respond to inquiries about the enforcement slowdown.

The Justice Department and White House avoided directly addressing court records showing the sharp decline in federal criminal prosecutions this year. Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre stated that “assisting our partners with immigration enforcement has not impacted our ability to investigate and swiftly prosecute other crimes.” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Trump “has taken necessary action in Minnesota to crack down on rampant fraud and illegal immigration.”

Federal authorities handle only a small portion of U.S. criminal cases but maintain an outsized public safety role due to their resources and ability to pursue complex investigations of dangerous criminals. Federal agencies possess surveillance and tracking capabilities often unavailable at the state level and can more effectively investigate crimes crossing state boundaries.

State and local authorities depend on their federal partners’ unique resources and jurisdiction, explained John Marti, a former federal prosecutor who previously served as acting U.S. Attorney in Minnesota.

“That’s not there anymore,” he said, due to attorney departures and the government’s intense immigration focus. The consequence, he predicted, will be more violent criminals “who are not apprehended and stopped.”

The transformation in Minnesota since the immigration crackdown has been so sudden that it may permanently impact traditional crime fighting, local law enforcement officials told Reuters. One official involved in the immigration enforcement surge warned that federal authorities’ capacity to pursue violent felons could remain compromised for years due to the “ripple effects” of the administration’s overwhelming immigration emphasis.

Reuters examined the impact using court dockets from Westlaw, a legal research service. The analysis counted cases on the federal district court’s criminal docket, where the most serious charges are filed, excluding cases before federal magistrates who handle minor offenses. Reuters used artificial intelligence to help categorize charges, with a random record review showing 98% accuracy.

Administration officials justified the Minneapolis crackdown as necessary to prevent crime, including a social services fraud scandal from 2022 that resulted in numerous Somali American prosecutions.

However, Reuters found authorities filed only two new wire fraud cases between January and April, neither involving government benefits. Federal and state agencies conducted searches at Minnesota social welfare organizations last week as part of a fraud investigation.

Although Minneapolis doesn’t rank among America’s most dangerous cities, federal authorities had recently prioritized combating violent crime there.

After the Minneapolis surge began, local authorities reported that federal agents already stationed in Minnesota started vanishing from anti-drug task forces to assist with immigration enforcement, though exact numbers remain unclear. “They’re experiencing significant disruptions because agents are being reassigned,” said Robert Small, executive director of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association.

Some agents had been diverted from street crime investigations to immigration work before the surge, according to two sources familiar with the situation. These agents frequently reported being unavailable on certain days while pursuing immigration enforcement.

The operation also triggered an exodus from Minnesota’s U.S. Attorney’s Office, where several prosecutors resigned rather than follow orders to investigate Good’s widow – the woman killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.

Additional attorneys subsequently departed. The wave of resignations left the office with approximately half its normal staff of about 50 attorneys, two sources familiar with staffing told Reuters. Five of six supervisors in the criminal section left, according to multiple sources who requested anonymity to discuss internal matters.

The Justice Department has since rotated military lawyers and prosecutors from other states as temporary replacements.

Understaffed federal prosecutors have struggled to file new cases or manage those initiated before the immigration operation. In February, a Minneapolis judge dismissed a case federal prosecutors filed last year against Tavon Timberlake, accused of being a felon possessing a firearm. After prosecutors missed deadlines, sometimes citing staff shortages, the judge ruled Timberlake was denied his right to a speedy trial and dismissed the case.

Last week, federal prosecutors requested court permission to drop charges against a man accused in a carjacking that killed two people and injured a six-year-old child, stating in court filings that local prosecutors would pursue charges instead.

Despite struggling with such serious crimes, federal prosecutors found time to arrest and charge dozens of people protesting Trump’s immigration crackdown. Beyond felony charges related to the church protest, prosecutors charged 40 additional people with mostly minor violations from confrontations with federal agents. They quickly dropped approximately half these cases, court records indicate.

One attorney familiar with the Minneapolis U.S. Attorney’s Office operations described it as severely limited in pursuing traditional cases: “They’re just trying to hang on.”

A federal commission is set to review President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to cover a historic 19th-century government building adjacent to the White House with white paint, a proposal that forms part of his broader vision to enhance Washington’s aesthetic appeal.

The National Capital Planning Commission has scheduled Thursday to examine Trump’s request to apply white paint to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building’s gray granite facade. The Republican president previously criticized the current gray color, describing it as “really bad” last year.

This painting proposal represents just one element of Trump’s extensive renovation efforts around the presidential complex. His administration is also demolishing the East Wing to construct a ballroom accommodating 1,000 guests, while Lafayette Park remains shuttered for improvements including fountain repairs.

White House official Josh Fisher explained to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts in April that the administration favors painting the complete structure due to exterior staining and what he termed “great disrepair.” An alternative approach would leave the base granite unpainted while covering the remainder in white.

Fisher noted that government-consulted experts couldn’t promise that cleaning alone would adequately address the building’s condition issues.

However, the proposal has sparked significant concern among preservation advocates, architectural experts, and historians. These critics contend that granite surfaces aren’t designed for paint application and warn that coating the stone could trap water, causing deterioration while failing to resolve the underlying problems the administration seeks to address.

Public sentiment strongly opposes the painting scheme. Extensive public feedback submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission, accessible through their website, demonstrates overwhelming resistance based on concerns about potential granite damage and continued problems despite substantial taxpayer costs. Alternative suggestions include enhanced landscaping, improved lighting, and other appearance upgrades.

The Society of Architectural Historians recently wrote to Will Scharf, a senior White House advisor who chairs the planning commission, explaining why the project “will adversely and permanently alter this important part of American heritage and should be rejected.”

Commission staff members have issued a report supporting building cleaning while requesting additional details to properly assess the painting proposals. They’re asking the White House to specify paint types and provide examples of successful granite exterior applications from other projects, plus alternative approaches including cleaning and lighting solutions.

The Eisenhower Executive Office Building holds National Historic Landmark status and appears on the National Register of Historic Places. Legal challenges to the proposed paint application are currently proceeding through federal courts.

Located across a driveway from the West Wing, the building showcases granite, slate, and cast iron construction representing one of America’s finest examples of French Second Empire architectural style. Originally housing the State, War, and Navy departments, it now contains ceremonial vice presidential offices, the second lady’s offices, National Security Council facilities, and other White House operations.

During their April session, the fine arts commission instructed White House representatives to return with additional information, including paint testing results.

DETROIT — Michigan’s Republican Party is experiencing growing pessimism about the 2026 midterm elections, abandoning earlier confidence that they could reclaim control in a state where Democrats currently dominate all major offices.

Economic pressures including skyrocketing fuel costs, an unpopular conflict in Iran, and trade policies damaging the automotive sector have created challenging conditions for GOP candidates across the state.

A significant alarm bell sounded this week when a Democratic candidate secured victory in a state Senate special election with a nearly 20-point margin in a district that Vice President Kamala Harris barely captured by less than one percentage point in 2024. The previous Democratic incumbent had won the same seat by just 6 points two years earlier.

“To get to this margin in that kind of a district means that Democrats and independent voters are working in tandem to send a message to the Trump administration,” explained Michigan polling expert Richard Czuba regarding the recent electoral outcome.

This political climate presents obstacles for Michigan’s GOP as they approach critical midterm contests that will determine the governor’s mansion, legislative control, and a high-profile U.S. Senate race. The state’s voter sentiment also carries national implications for Republicans, who view Michigan as essential to their coalition after Donald Trump’s 2024 victory there.

Across the country, Trump’s economic approval ratings have declined between March and April as the Iranian conflict drove up consumer costs, according to AP-NORC polling data. The April survey revealed weakening support even among Republican voters, with positive economic views dropping from 74% to 62% during that period.

Independent voters, who play a decisive role in battleground states like Michigan, remain largely unimpressed with Trump’s economic performance. Approximately 20% of independents endorsed his economic handling in April, down from roughly 30% the previous month. Just one-quarter of American adults expressed approval for his approach to cost-of-living issues.

Michigan residents may be experiencing these economic impacts more severely than citizens in other regions. The state’s gasoline prices currently average approximately $4.80 per gallon, ranking tenth nationally according to AAA data, following an 80-cent weekly spike.

Local voter Jared Kaufman, 26, expressed frustration with escalating expenses and the Iranian military involvement. He supported Democrat Chedrick Green in the recent election, explaining that as an educator with limited income, the sacrifices required “for something that is nowhere near us” seem unjustified.

Trade policies have generated additional concerns in a state heavily dependent on automobile manufacturing and Canadian commerce. While Trump contends these measures will bolster domestic production, Michigan suppliers and smaller manufacturers report that uncertainty has complicated investment and growth planning.

“The more stability there is in the environment, the easier it is for me to make decisions to grow and expand,” stated John Lytle, president of Promess Inc., a Detroit-area manufacturing company. “That’s probably been the biggest impact it’s had on us.”

Jason Roe, a political consultant and former Michigan GOP executive director, acknowledged current environmental challenges while arguing that Democrats face their own difficulties and Trump retains time to reduce costs.

“But if they don’t get Iran figured out pretty quick, we’re screwed,” he added.

These political headwinds coincide with internal Republican divisions among leading candidates.

The gubernatorial contest was previously considered the GOP’s strongest pickup opportunity, given Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s term limits forcing her departure. Michigan historically tends to elect governors from the opposing party when incumbents step down.

Representative John James, a military veteran representing a competitive congressional district, had emerged as the primary frontrunner with previous Trump endorsements in two unsuccessful Senate campaigns. However, party dissatisfaction with his campaign strategy has intensified recently.

When James announced in April that he would skip a GOP debate in a crucial swing county while other major candidates participated, numerous Republicans voiced criticism.

“The data is clear: if John James wins the Aug. 4, 2026, primary, Republicans will almost certainly lose the general election in November,” declared Chris Long, a Michigan GOP leadership member, in a social media statement urging James to withdraw.

James has committed to participating in two July debates.

Democrats confront their own challenges. Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson leads their expected field, though Genesee County Sheriff Chris Swanson is also campaigning. Party members express concern that Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, a former Democrat now seeking the governorship as an independent, could divide their vote share.

James’s campaign has been further complicated by Perry Johnson’s late entrance. The millionaire businessman, who previously mounted unsuccessful gubernatorial and presidential bids in 2022 and 2024, has launched aggressive attacks against James while announcing a $10 million television advertising campaign in February.

Republican strategist Dennis Lennox characterized James as conducting “an awful campaign,” while noting that any GOP nominee will face difficult circumstances.

“Anyone who isn’t being paid to say otherwise will concede that 2026 is going to be a very difficult year for Republicans,” Lennox observed.

James spokesperson Hannah Osantowske dismissed the criticism as “sore losers griping,” maintaining that James remains the GOP leader and “the only Republican beating both Democrats in November.” She also downplayed Johnson’s candidacy.

“Michiganders are not buying what he is selling,” Osantowske stated. “They want a trusted Trump ally, combat veteran and proven job creator. That is John James.”

Beyond the gubernatorial race, national Republicans are focused on capturing Michigan’s open Senate seat to prevent Democratic control of the chamber.

Former Representative Mike Rogers is mounting another GOP campaign after losing in 2024 by fewer than 20,000 votes to freshman Senator Elissa Slotkin.

Democrats are conducting a competitive and increasingly contentious Senate primary featuring three prominent candidates competing for the August 4 nomination.

Questions persist about Rogers’s ability to win a race he previously lost despite Trump’s ballot presence. No Republican has captured a Michigan Senate seat since 1994.

While Rogers maintains the largest cash reserves among Senate candidates due to an uncontested GOP primary, Democratic contenders state senator Mallory McMorrow and former health official Dr. Abdul El-Sayed outpaced his fundraising in 2026’s first quarter. The Senate Leadership Fund, the primary Republican super PAC, announced a $45 million initial investment in Michigan’s race during early April.

Czuba suggested that external spending might not benefit Rogers if it further nationalizes the contest.

“If the conversation is nationalized in Michigan, we see how poorly the president’s numbers look right now,” Czuba explained. “If undecided voters disproportionately view Donald Trump negatively, I’m not sure what the path is for Mike Rogers.”

Recent state election results in India have revealed a concerning trend of religious-based voting that is widening the political gap between the nation’s Hindu and Muslim communities.

Data from elections held across four Indian states shows Muslim voters are increasingly rallying behind the opposition Congress party, while Hindu voters continue to strongly support Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling party. Political experts warn this pattern signals growing religious division in a country that is officially secular.

Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party has embraced a Hindu-first ideology known as Hindutva since taking power in 2014. This approach benefits the party significantly because Hindus make up nearly 80% of India’s 1.42 billion population, compared to approximately 14% who are Muslim.

“The rise of the BJP has led to a consolidation of Muslim voters behind so‑called secular parties, particularly the Congress – a form of reverse polarisation is taking place,” explained political analyst Rasheed Kidwai, a visiting fellow with the Observer Research Foundation.

Muslim community leaders and political observers note that voters from their community are shifting away from smaller, Muslim-focused parties toward Congress and other major regional parties that have better chances of forming governments.

The recent state elections produced disappointing results for Congress overall, with the party’s coalition winning control of just one state while BJP-led alliances captured three states and a new regional party took the remaining contest.

However, Muslim support for Congress was particularly striking in Assam, a northeastern state controlled by the BJP. Of Congress’s 19 newly elected representatives there, 18 are Muslim – an increase from about 16 in the previous assembly. Congress had nominated 20 Muslim candidates and roughly 80 non-Muslim candidates for the 126-seat legislature, where the BJP secured 82 seats.

Meanwhile, the Assam-based All India United Democratic Front, which primarily attracts Muslim voters, saw its representation plummet to only two seats from 16 in the previous election cycle.

In neighboring West Bengal, where the BJP achieved its first victory with 207 representatives in the 294-seat assembly, both Congress legislators who won were Muslim.

Notably, the BJP chose not to nominate any Muslim candidates in either Assam or West Bengal. Party officials in both states, including West Bengal’s prospective chief minister Suvendu Adhikari, attributed their victories to Hindu voter support.

“It was a victory for Hindutva,” Adhikari declared.

Political columnist Radhika Ramaseshan warned that this trend could intensify further divisions. “In the future – depending on local political dynamics – if Muslim voters increasingly consolidate behind Congress, dominant Hindu voters may also regroup more strongly around the BJP,” she predicted.

Badruddin Ajmal, leader of the AIUDF in Assam, believes Congress has benefited from fears among Muslim voters who feel marginalized under BJP governance and worry about their citizenship status being questioned.

“The argument being made is that only a party with the strength to fight the BJP at the centre can ultimately address these concerns. This is not true but voters believe it because they are scared,” Ajmal said.

When the BJP criticized Congress for becoming a “new Muslim League,” Congress responded by noting that Muslims comprise about 12% of its 664 state legislators nationwide, while roughly 78% are Hindu – proportions that mirror India’s overall religious demographics.

Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera expressed frustration with the religious focus in modern politics. “I am embarrassed to talk about these things in the 21st century,” he said, emphasizing that his party, which governed India for 54 years following 1947 independence, maintains broad-based support.

“We have always stood by the weak and the oppressed and will continue to do so, irrespective of their religion and caste,” Khera stated.

The BJP has also made efforts to court Muslim voters, though the party did not field any Muslim candidates in the 2024 general election.

Modi has consistently rejected accusations that he uses religious appeals for political gain. “The day I start talking about Hindu-Muslim (in politics) will be the day I lose my ability to lead a public life,” he said while filing his candidacy two years ago. “I will not do Hindu-Muslim. That is my resolve.”

However, columnist Ramaseshan argues that religious rhetoric, particularly during election periods, has become much more prominent under Modi’s leadership compared to previous BJP administrations.

“The BJP and the larger Sangh (the party’s ideological parent) are shaping a new idea of India as a ‘Hindu rashtra (nation)’ — and that narrative has increasingly embedded itself in public consciousness,” she observed. “In the years ahead, we may see a complete overturning of the very idea of India.”

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Legal representatives for the Southern Poverty Law Center faced federal court proceedings Thursday, marking their initial appearance since the civil rights organization was hit with charges alleging they misled donors about how contributions would be used to pay informants within extremist organizations.

The federal grand jury charges, filed April 21 by the U.S. Justice Department, represent an unprecedented legal challenge against the Alabama-headquartered organization, which focuses on fighting discrimination and racism across Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi.

The SPLC maintains its innocence, and no individuals face personal charges in the case.

The organization has faced scrutiny from conservative critics, including FBI Director Kash Patel, particularly following a report that listed Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA among groups associated with “hate and extremism.” Kirk died during a college event in Utah in 2025.

Advocates argue the SPLC is being unjustly pursued by the Trump administration due to its successful civil rights work.

Federal court in Montgomery hosted Thursday’s arraignment on allegations including money laundering conspiracy, wire fraud and providing false information to financial institutions.

According to the Justice Department, the organization deceived contributors by channeling their donations toward funding the very extremism it claims to oppose. The indictment alleges approximately $3 million was directed to informants connected with the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, National Socialist Party of America and similar organizations from 2014 through 2023.

CEO Bryan Fair defended the payments, explaining they supported confidential sources who monitored potential violence from extremist factions. Fair stated the intelligence collected helped prevent harm and was regularly provided to the FBI.

“We are outraged by the false allegations levied against SPLC,” Fair declared following the filing of charges.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche recently confirmed the organization’s established practice of cooperating with law enforcement after being questioned about contradictory statements.

“That’s well-documented, and there’s no dispute there. They aren’t charged with any of that conduct,” Blanche stated.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Silicon Valley leaders have found their champion in the California governor’s race, and they’re opening their wallets wide to support him.

Matt Mahan, the 43-year-old mayor of San Jose, has become the technology sector’s preferred choice to lead the Golden State. One tech investor described him as “the only sane” Democrat seeking to replace Governor Gavin Newsom, while others have contributed millions to his campaign, including funding for a Super Bowl commercial to introduce him to California voters.

The former technology executive entered the competitive gubernatorial contest in January, positioning himself as a practical leader focused on results. As a moderate Democrat, Mahan has gained statewide attention primarily through his criticism of Governor Newsom and state lawmakers’ handling of homelessness and criminal justice issues. His centrist approach has resonated with technology industry leaders seeking a business-oriented governor to follow Newsom, who cannot seek reelection due to term limits.

In an impressive fundraising sprint spanning just three months, Mahan has collected more campaign contributions than his competitors, most of whom began their campaigns over a year ago. (Billionaire Tom Steyer is primarily financing his own candidacy.)

During Tuesday evening’s CNN debate, Mahan portrayed his opponents as entrenched politicians while presenting himself as the candidate offering realistic answers to California’s problems.

“We don’t need MAGA values, but we also don’t need more of the same,” Mahan stated, referencing President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” philosophy embraced by Republican candidates Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton, both of whom have received Trump’s endorsement.

However, Mahan appears to lack the political momentum he anticipated and the broad public recognition necessary to defeat his competitors — with limited time remaining to persuade voters before the June 2 primary election. His connections to the tech industry particularly concern labor organizations and some Democratic voters who doubt his willingness to challenge the sector.

“People do not want somebody who is a puppet of these big tech billionaires, of these AI billionaires — and that’s who he has always been,” stated Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, president of the California Labor Federation, which has endorsed Steyer, former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Mahan argues he’s the sole candidate with genuine experience dealing with the massive technology industry, highlighting a collaborative effort he established in San Jose where over 900 public agencies cooperate to explore responsible artificial intelligence implementation in government operations. During Tuesday’s debate, he expressed support for taxing AI companies to fund worker training programs.

“Voters can see past the kind of, you know, shallow connection that because I’m the mayor of the largest city in Silicon Valley, that might mean that I’m not willing to regulate tech,” Mahan told The Associated Press. “It’s actually been quite the opposite.”

Political analysts point out that California has historically pioneered policies designed to both support and control its homegrown technology sector.

“If they can ensure that they get a governor in California who’s weak on tech accountability, then that can save them a lot of money across the states,” J.B. Branch of Public Citizen, a progressive consumer rights advocacy group, said regarding Silicon Valley executives supporting Mahan.

Throughout the political landscape, the technology industry is demonstrating its political influence as public doubt about social media and artificial intelligence grows. Independent organizations supported by tech companies and billionaires have already pledged at least $40 million to shape California legislative contests.

Political action committees supporting Mahan have collected over $25 million, including contributions from Google co-founder Sergey Brin, venture capitalist Michael Moritz and Reddit CEO Steve Huffman.

Several contributors, including Brin and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, are diversifying their investments — they have also donated to Hilton, the former Fox News personality.

Mahan is “focused on actually solving problems — building more housing, improving public safety and making it possible for people to live and work here again,” Garry Tan, who leads a startup accelerator that helped launch companies like Airbnb and DoorDash, said through a spokesperson.

A Harvard University alumnus, Mahan was a classmate of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who he has said convinced him to pursue technology instead of attending law school.

Mahan participated in developing an early Facebook application called Causes that enabled users to promote nonprofit organizations. He later co-founded Brigade, a nonpartisan digital voter network.

However, that background isn’t central to Mahan’s campaign messaging. Instead, he emphasizes his childhood as the son of a postal worker and a schoolteacher. He stands as the only prominent Democrat supporting a suspension of the state’s gasoline tax.

He won the mayoral election in 2022 against a labor-endorsed opponent after spending two years on the city council. As mayor, he persuaded council members to allocate additional city funds toward temporary housing to remove homeless individuals from streets and made them subject to arrest for refusing shelter. Both initiatives faced strong resistance, but San Jose experienced a reduction in the number of people without shelter access last year, according to county statistics.

He opposed Newsom in 2024 by supporting a strict crime prevention ballot measure. Mahan has subsequently moderated his criticism, acknowledging the governor has addressed appropriate issues.

Mahan has pledged not to increase taxes to address budget shortfalls — including rejecting a one-time billionaire tax that most of his competitors also oppose. He proposes linking future salary increases for elected state officials and appointees to progress on issues like unemployment and homelessness.

“Raising taxes isn’t always the answer, Tom,” he directly told Steyer on Tuesday when the billionaire proposed requiring corporations to pay higher property taxes.

Mahan collected over $13 million in 11 weeks, enabling him to launch television advertisements to reach voters in some of the nation’s most expensive media markets. Two independent expenditure organizations have spent more than $18 million promoting his candidacy.

As of last month, only approximately 730 contributions to Mahan’s campaign were under $250, suggesting limited grassroots backing. By comparison, nearly all of Porter’s 46,000 donations fell below that threshold, as did roughly 5,600 contributions to former state attorney general Xavier Becerra.

Nevertheless, voters’ support for other Democratic candidates “is very soft” Mahan said regarding his prospects. “Even if people are leaning a certain way, they’re still persuadable.”

Technology executives’ backing of Mahan’s campaign and his regulatory plans dominated discussion during a recent “Ask Me Anything” session Mahan conducted on Reddit, where participants can pose questions anonymously.

Multiple participants asked when Mahan would withdraw to prevent a disastrous outcome for Democrats where two Republicans could advance to the November general election. One inquired which Democrat he would support after leaving the race.

“I plan to win!” he replied.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Tennessee’s Republican-controlled legislature is set to consider legislation Thursday that would break apart the state’s only majority-Black congressional district, a move backed by President Donald Trump as part of his broader effort to maintain Republican control of the U.S. House.

This redistricting push in Tennessee represents one of multiple fast-moving initiatives across the South, where GOP leaders are capitalizing on a recent Supreme Court decision that diminished protections under the federal Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court determined that Louisiana placed excessive emphasis on racial considerations when establishing a second district with a Black majority in an effort to comply with federal voting rights requirements. This ruling shifted longstanding interpretations of the law, providing Republicans with justification to target majority-Black districts that typically elect Democratic representatives.

Louisiana has delayed its congressional primary to allow state legislators time to develop a revised House map. Alabama lawmakers are also considering legislation that would disrupt their state’s congressional primaries if courts permit changes to House districts. In South Carolina, Republican legislators, encouraged by Trump, have begun preliminary steps to include congressional redistricting in their legislative agenda.

These states join what has become an intense nationwide redistricting fight. Following Trump’s encouragement of Texas to redraw its House districts last year, eight states have implemented new congressional maps. Republicans believe they could secure up to 13 additional seats from these changes, while Democrats estimate they might gain as many as 10. However, competitive races suggest neither party may achieve all their redistricting goals in November’s elections.

During Wednesday’s legislative hearings on the redistricting proposals, protesters repeatedly disrupted proceedings, though Republicans still moved the measures forward for potential final votes in both chambers.

The legislative package would eliminate a state law that prevents redistricting between census cycles and reopen candidate filing periods to allow new candidates to enter primaries and current candidates to change districts. The proposed House map would dismantle Tennessee’s single Democratic-held district, which centers on Memphis and its majority-Black population, triggering widespread changes to districts across western and central Tennessee.

Republican House Speaker Cameron Sexton defended the proposed districts, stating they were created based on population and political considerations rather than racial demographics.

Civil rights advocates and Democratic officials strongly criticized the initiative.

“This proposal represents Black vote dilution at an industrial scale,” said Sekou Franklin, a political science professor at Middle Tennessee State University who works with the Tennessee NAACP chapter.

Democrats highlighted that the state Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the current congressional map in April 2022, determining it was too close to election day to implement changes. With even less time remaining before the August 6 primary this year, Democrats warned of potential confusion for both candidates and voters.

Alabama’s House approved legislation Wednesday establishing special congressional primaries as Republicans pursue the possibility of implementing a different congressional map before November’s elections. The Senate could vote on the measure by Friday.

Alabama seeks to overturn a federal court mandate that established a second House district with a near-majority Black population. That map resulted in the 2024 election of Rep. Shomari Figures, a Black Democrat. Republicans prefer to implement a 2023 map created by state lawmakers that would give the GOP a chance to regain Figures’ district.

The legislation passed along party lines following four hours of heated discussion during which Black lawmakers referenced the state’s historical struggles. Democratic state Rep. Juandalynn Givan compared the legislation to poll taxes and jelly bean counting exercises — nearly impossible tasks used to prevent Black voters from participating during the Jim Crow period.

“This represents a calculated political strategy driven by fear, specifically fear of Black people and Black political influence,” Givan stated.

Alabama’s primaries are scheduled for May 19. If a court approves the state’s request, the legislation would disregard congressional race results and direct the governor to organize new primaries under the modified districts.

South Carolina’s Senate may consider a resolution Thursday authorizing lawmakers to return after their regular session concludes to redraw congressional districts, potentially eliminating the state’s sole Democratic-held district. The proposal, which passed the House Wednesday, requires two-thirds approval in both chambers.

Republican House leaders announced plans to introduce a new map Thursday and conduct committee meetings Friday following the vote. During Wednesday’s debate, Republicans avoided specific questions from Democrats about their willingness to halt the June 9 House primary elections after candidates had already filed and the potential costs of rescheduled primaries.

Democratic Rep. Justin Bamberg expressed sympathy for Republicans who, he argued, were abandoning their principles to accommodate Trump’s demands.

“The president wields significant influence through Truth Social, X, Meta, and Instagram. Honestly, I don’t envy our Republican colleagues,” Bamberg said.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to meet with Pope Leo at the Vatican this Thursday, marking a significant diplomatic encounter amid ongoing tensions between President Donald Trump and the Catholic Church leader regarding the Iran conflict.

Rubio, who doubles as Trump’s national security adviser, is expected to arrive at the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace at approximately 11:15 a.m. local time for what will be the first meeting between the pontiff and a Trump administration cabinet member in almost twelve months.

The private discussion is anticipated to run roughly thirty minutes, followed by a separate meeting between Rubio and Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s chief diplomat from Italy.

Pope Leo, who became the first American to hold the papacy, has faced Trump’s criticism after voicing strong opposition to the U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran and condemning the administration’s strict immigration stance.

In recent weeks, Trump has launched an extraordinary series of public criticisms against the pope, prompting condemnation from Christian leaders spanning the political divide.

This past Monday, Trump made false claims suggesting the pope supported Iran’s nuclear weapons development and accused Leo of “endangering a lot of Catholics” through his war opposition.

Following Trump’s latest verbal assault, Leo spoke to reporters about his commitment to promoting Christian values of peace. The pope categorically denied any support for nuclear weapons, emphasizing the Catholic Church’s teaching that such weapons are morally wrong.

“The mission of the Church is to preach the Gospel, to preach peace,” the pope stated. “The Church has spoken out for years against all nuclear arms, on that there is no doubt.”

Pope Leo, who will commemorate his first anniversary leading the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics this Friday, has become increasingly vocal on international matters recently.

Last month during a diplomatic visit across four African nations, he strongly criticized current global leadership trends and declared the world was “being ravaged by a handful of tyrants,” though he later clarified these remarks weren’t specifically targeting Trump.

Both Rubio and Vice President JD Vance practice the Catholic faith and previously met with Pope Leo one year ago following his inaugural papal ceremony.

During Tuesday’s White House press briefing, Rubio indicated he planned to address Cuba-related issues and worldwide religious freedom concerns during his Vatican visit.

Unusually for a secretary of state’s international travel, Rubio is making the Rome trip without any accompanying press corps.

Brian Burch, the U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, informed reporters Tuesday that the papal meeting with the cabinet official would likely involve “frank” dialogue.

Rubio’s two-day Roman itinerary includes a Friday meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who has publicly defended the pope against Trump’s criticisms. Meloni’s defense minister has also warned that the Iranian conflict jeopardizes American global leadership.

HERSHEY, Pa. — During a legal conference in Pennsylvania on Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back against perceptions that Supreme Court justices function as political figures, emphasizing that controversial decisions stem from legal interpretation rather than policy preferences.

Speaking to judges and attorneys from the 3rd U.S. Circuit, Roberts addressed public misconceptions about the court’s role. “I think, at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, we’re saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides,” he explained. “I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.”

Roberts’ defense comes during a period of diminished public trust in the nation’s highest court, occurring roughly one week after justices delivered a ruling that significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act.

The recent decision eliminated a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana, determining it constituted an illegal racial gerrymander. This ruling undermined the Civil Rights-era legislation that had boosted minority congressional representation and potentially enables additional redistricting efforts that could benefit Republican House control strategies.

The conservative-controlled court has issued several transformative decisions in recent years, including eliminating constitutional abortion protections, broadening Second Amendment rights, and prohibiting race-conscious college admissions practices.

While avoiding mention of particular cases, Roberts maintained the court operates outside political spheres. “One things we have to do is make decisions that are unpopular,” he acknowledged, while stressing that rulings reflect justices’ constitutional analysis rather than personal views.

Roberts also criticized personal attacks against judges based on their judicial decisions, a concern he has voiced repeatedly as threats against federal judges increase. “That’s not appropriate and it can lead to very serious problems,” he warned.

Former President Donald Trump has been among those launching personal criticisms of judges, including Roberts himself and other justices who ruled against Trump’s emergency tariff powers.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — GOP lawmakers across multiple Southern states are accelerating efforts to redraw congressional boundaries following a recent Supreme Court decision that has opened the door to challenging existing district maps.

In Tennessee, demonstrators continuously disrupted legislative sessions focused on redistricting proposals. Despite the interruptions, Republican lawmakers moved the plans forward for a possible final decision on Thursday.

Meanwhile, Alabama’s Republican-controlled House voted to approve legislation that would allow new congressional primaries if courts permit them to implement different U.S. House boundaries.

Last week’s Supreme Court decision determined that Louisiana placed excessive emphasis on racial considerations when establishing a second district with a Black majority population while trying to follow Voting Rights Act requirements. This decision provides Republican officials in Louisiana and other states with justification to attempt removing districts where Black voters hold majorities and typically elect Democratic candidates.

The court’s decision has escalated what was already an intense nationwide battle over district boundaries before November’s midterm elections, which will decide control of the narrowly divided House of Representatives.

Since Texas became the first state to redraw its House districts last year, eight states have implemented new congressional maps. Republicans believe they could pick up as many as 13 seats, while Democrats estimate they might gain up to 10. However, several newly created districts may be contested in November, potentially preventing either party from achieving their full objectives.

Tennessee Proposal Divides Memphis Area

On Wednesday, Tennessee Republicans unveiled a new House map that would divide Shelby County, where Memphis is located, among three districts rather than the current two. This change would dismantle the state’s only Democratic-controlled district, which centers on the predominantly Black city, triggering widespread modifications to districts across western and central Tennessee.

“Tennessee is a conservative state, and our congressional delegation should reflect that. This bill ensures it does,” stated Republican state Sen. John Stevens.

Republican House Speaker Cameron Sexton explained that the proposed boundaries were created using population data and political considerations rather than racial demographics.

Alabama House Supports New Primary Elections

Alabama’s Republican-majority House approved legislation on Wednesday that would authorize special congressional primary elections as GOP officials consider implementing a different congressional map for November’s elections. The measure now advances to the state Senate.

Alabama officials are working to overturn a federal court directive that established a second congressional district with nearly majority Black voter representation. This map resulted in the 2024 election of Rep. Shomari Figures, a Black Democratic candidate. Republicans prefer to implement a 2023 map created by state legislators that would provide the GOP with a chance to regain Figures’ southern Alabama district.

South Carolina Advances Redistricting Plans

South Carolina’s House approved a resolution on Wednesday that would authorize lawmakers to reconvene after their regular session concludes to redraw congressional districts, potentially eliminating the state’s sole Democratic-held district. The proposal must now receive Senate approval, requiring a two-thirds majority vote.

Following Wednesday’s vote, Republican House leadership announced plans to present a new map on Thursday and conduct committee discussions on Friday.

PHOENIX (AP) — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Wednesday that the Justice Department plans to remove immigration judges who process cases too slowly or fail to properly apply the law, as the Trump administration works to accelerate deportations and address a massive backlog of 3.7 million pending cases.

Speaking at the annual Border Security Expo in Phoenix, which brings together immigration officials, law enforcement, and government contractors, Blanche outlined the administration’s strategy to overhaul immigration courts. His presence at the event underscores how border security has become a top administration priority.

In an interview with The Associated Press following his conference remarks, Blanche provided the most comprehensive details yet about immigration court reforms since taking over after Pam Bondi’s departure last month.

“You take an oath and you’re not allowed to make decisions based upon what appear to be just sympathy or your whim,” Blanche stated.

“If there’s judges that are just not applying the law in the way that it needs to be applied, delaying inappropriately, have backlogs that are just unacceptable, they’re the folks that we’re going to try to find somebody different to fill that spot.”

The Trump administration has positioned mass deportations as a cornerstone policy, launching a comprehensive government-wide initiative to meet ambitious removal targets. The effort includes expanded enforcement operations in U.S. cities, increased detention capacity, and additional immigration officer recruitment.

Although the Department of Homeland Security primarily handles President Donald Trump’s deportation agenda, immigration courts operate under Justice Department authority, making them crucial to the overall strategy.

During Trump’s current term, dozens of immigration judges have lost their positions, with opponents claiming they were dismissed for approving too many asylum requests. The administration has also deployed masked officers to detain migrants at private asylum proceedings and issued directives requiring judicial compliance. Immigrant advocates report that routine court appearances have increasingly become arrest opportunities.

Immigration courts operate differently from federal courts, lacking strict procedural protections and lifetime tenure guarantees. The attorney general maintains broader authority to dismiss immigration judges compared to federal judicial positions.

However, legal advocates strongly oppose the administration’s court restructuring approach.

“Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is systematically dismantling due process protections in U.S. immigration courts, prioritizing speed and enforcement over fairness, accuracy, and fundamental justice,” the American Immigration Lawyers Association stated in a recent policy document.

Opposition groups also point to decisions by an internal court board that have restricted asylum pathways under the current administration. Blanche dismissed these concerns, maintaining that the rulings align with existing law.

Blanche identified ongoing issues with judges who continuously postpone cases and others who ignore legal requirements “because of sympathy towards individuals.”

With substantial congressional funding secured last summer for additional judicial hiring, the department is rapidly expanding its immigration judge workforce, though critics question whether new appointees meet qualification standards.

“We have a very rigorous process to get people interviewed, approved, and then trained up. And then we’ll watch them,” Blanche said, defending the hiring practices.

Blanche also revealed increased Justice Department focus on revoking citizenship from individuals accused of system fraud through “denaturalization” procedures. This process averaged only about twelve cases annually between 1990 and 2017.

“That’s one of the tools that we are using aggressively that hasn’t been used as aggressively in the past,” Blanche explained, though he declined to provide specific case numbers.

Federal immigration authorities have revived efforts to remove a Columbia University student from the country after he took part in pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus, according to legal documents filed by his attorneys.

The U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals reversed an earlier decision that had halted deportation proceedings against Mohsen Mahdawi, a student who was taken into custody last year following his involvement in campus protests supporting Palestinian causes.

In February, immigration judge Nina Froes from Chelmsford, Massachusetts had dismissed the Trump administration’s attempts to remove Mahdawi from the United States. However, Froes lost her position last month.

The immigration appeals board, operating under the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, has now overruled Froes’ earlier determination. President Trump has characterized activists such as Mahdawi as promoting antisemitic views, backing extremist causes, and posing risks to American foreign policy interests.

Civil rights advocates and some Jewish organizations argue that federal officials are incorrectly equating legitimate criticism of Israel’s military actions in Gaza and its control over Palestinian areas with antisemitic sentiment, while also treating Palestinian rights advocacy as extremist support.

“The government continues to weaponize the immigration system to silence dissent,” Mahdawi stated in a release distributed by his attorneys on Wednesday.

Mahdawi, who grew up in a refugee settlement in the West Bank under Israeli control, was detained in April 2025 when he appeared for an interview regarding his application for American citizenship. He spent two weeks in custody before a judge ordered his release, and authorities never filed criminal charges against him.

The American Civil Liberties Union, serving as Mahdawi’s legal representation, maintains that immigration officials cannot currently remove him from the country because his detention is being contested through federal court proceedings.

The Trump administration has intensified its response to pro-Palestinian activism by pursuing deportation of foreign demonstrators, threatening funding cuts to universities hosting protests, and examining immigrants’ social media activity. Civil liberties experts have raised concerns about the impact on constitutional rights, legal procedures, and academic independence.

American universities have experienced ongoing campus organizing against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza beginning in late 2023, with demonstration activity reaching its height during 2024. Though the movement’s intensity has decreased, sporadic incidents continue to occur.

During the past weekend, University of Michigan faculty member Derek Peterson expressed support for pro-Palestinian demonstrators during spring graduation ceremonies, leading the institution to issue a public apology.

On Wednesday, Rutgers University announced it had rescinded an invitation to pro-Palestinian business executive Rami Elghandour, known for his criticism of Israeli policies, to deliver a commencement address scheduled for next week.

Civil rights advocates and Democratic protesters gathered in multiple Southern states to oppose Republican-controlled redistricting initiatives being advanced before upcoming midterm elections. The demonstrations targeted GOP lawmakers who are pushing forward with controversial mapping plans despite strong resistance from opposition groups.

Legislative sessions in Tennessee, Alabama and South Carolina featured heated discussions over proposed district boundaries that activists warn could dilute the voting power of majority-Black congressional areas. These redistricting proposals come in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision regarding congressional map drawing.

The protests highlight ongoing tensions over how electoral districts are configured, with civil rights organizations arguing that the proposed changes could undermine minority representation in Congress.

ATLANTA — A federal judge has denied Fulton County’s request to recover 2020 election ballots and materials that federal agents confiscated from an Atlanta-area storage facility, ruling Wednesday that the Justice Department may continue holding the seized items.

U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee issued the decision after county attorneys contended that the ballots and related election documents, along with any digital copies created by federal officials, should be given back due to an illegal and unconstitutional seizure.

Federal agents conducted the January 28 confiscation at the election operations center in Georgia’s largest county, a Democratic stronghold that encompasses most of Atlanta. Fulton County has faced repeated unsubstantiated allegations from President Donald Trump and supporters claiming massive voter fraud altered the 2020 election outcome.

According to the Justice Department, investigators are examining “irregularities that occurred during the 2020 presidential election in the County” and have identified potential violations of two federal statutes. One law mandates preserving election records for 22 months, while another criminalizes obtaining, casting or counting false or fraudulent ballots.

The 2020 presidential results in Georgia underwent three separate counts, including a complete hand recount, with each tally confirming Democrat Joe Biden’s victory.

Neither Fulton County representatives nor Justice Department officials immediately provided comments about Wednesday’s decision. The county maintains the option to challenge the ruling in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The seizure in this case was certainly not perfect,” Boulee stated in his 68-page decision. However, he determined that Fulton County failed to demonstrate that officials “callously disregarded” its constitutional protections “either through the lack of probable cause, omissions in the Affidavit or by the manner of the execution of the seizure.”

The county also could not prove it requires the materials or would suffer permanent damage without their return, the judge noted, especially since federal officials provided copies of the documents to the county.

Following the January confiscation, the Justice Department secured a grand jury subpoena in April requesting names and contact details for Fulton County workers and volunteers who participated in the 2020 election. County officials filed a motion Monday seeking to invalidate that subpoena, claiming it exceeds reasonable scope and aims to intimidate political adversaries.

The Trump administration has pursued similar efforts to access election records from other battleground states. Federal agents used a subpoena in March to obtain documents from a 2020 presidential election review in Arizona’s Maricopa County. In April, the Justice Department ordered Michigan’s Wayne County to surrender its 2024 election ballots.

Federal officials are simultaneously battling multiple states in court for voter information containing private personal details. Election administrators, including Republican officials, have stated that releasing such information would breach state and federal privacy protections.

Democratic leaders have expressed alarm that the Trump administration is misusing federal law enforcement to pursue the president’s personal vendettas and may be plotting interference in upcoming midterm elections. Administration officials maintain they are investigating past irregularities and working to safeguard future elections.

At a March 27 hearing regarding Fulton County’s demand for return of its ballots and materials, county lawyers contended the seizure was improper and unjustified, showing “callous disregard” for Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. They suggested the Trump administration chose to use a criminal search warrant after becoming impatient with civil litigation the Justice Department initiated last year to obtain the same materials.

Federal prosecutors defended their warrant application process and document seizure as appropriate. They emphasized that simultaneous civil and criminal investigations on the same matter occur regularly.

Judge Boulee acknowledged the warrant affidavit contained “defective” elements and included some “troubling” statements. However, he observed that the FBI agent who prepared it also presented “facts that both hurt and helped him.” He determined the document’s flaws do not constitute callous disregard.

The judge further agreed that the government may pursue both civil and criminal cases on identical issues and concluded the investigation timeline contradicts the county’s claim that the Justice Department “created an ‘ongoing investigation’ to sidestep procedural hurdles” in civil proceedings.

A federal judge in Atlanta has decided that the Justice Department may retain possession of 2020 election ballots that FBI agents collected during a search earlier this year, delivering a legal win for the Trump administration’s ongoing investigation into alleged voting irregularities.

U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee denied Fulton County’s motion to have the original documents returned. County attorneys had contended that the FBI’s operation at their election facility was based on unreliable and debunked information, and that it breached constitutional protections.

Fulton County representatives have not yet provided a statement regarding the decision.

This court decision represents an uncommon legal success for Trump’s Justice Department in investigations the president has called for. The ruling permits federal agents to maintain control of over 600 containers of 2020 ballots while they conduct a criminal probe examining whether election materials were improperly stored or if Fulton County voters were denied a legitimate election process. Fulton County encompasses the majority of Atlanta.

However, the investigation continues to encounter substantial challenges. Justice Department attorneys have not named any specific suspects in the case and have not challenged assertions that the time limit for prosecution may have already passed for both offenses under investigation.

Election administrators and specialists nationwide have been monitoring this case closely as Trump continues to suggest possible federal intervention in local elections and raises questions about voting procedures before the upcoming November elections.

Trump has persistently made unfounded allegations that his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden resulted from extensive fraud, and has directed federal law enforcement and intelligence services to reexamine vote collection and counting procedures.

Justice Department representatives maintained that Fulton County failed to satisfy the strict legal requirements needed to recover materials taken during a court-authorized search.

The search operation, which received approval from a federal magistrate judge, involved FBI agents taking original 2020 ballots and additional documents from the county’s election facility located in Union City, Georgia. Officials pointed to supposed problems with the 2020 vote, including allegations that certain digital ballot images were absent and some mail-in ballots appeared not to have been properly folded as mandated.

The probe originated from information provided by Kurt Olsen, an attorney who assisted Trump’s efforts to reverse the 2020 election results and has been assigned by the White House to review the vote. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s director of national intelligence, was present during the search in an uncommon action for an official typically focused on international threats.

Fulton County, a Democratic stronghold in a state that has become highly competitive in presidential races, became a focal point for conspiracy theories and fraud allegations promoted by Trump and his supporters after the 2020 election.

Biden’s substantial victory margin in Fulton County was crucial in turning Georgia to the Democrats. The state returned to Trump’s column in 2024.

County legal representatives argued that the FBI document used to justify the search excluded important background information demonstrating that many allegations had been previously examined and determined to be either baseless or errors that did not stem from deliberate wrongdoing.

At a March court session in Atlanta, an election specialist who consulted with the county during the 2020 election stated that much of the evidence referenced in the affidavit seemed to reflect a lack of understanding about election procedures.

Federal officials have launched a legal challenge against Colorado’s restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines, filing suit to eliminate a state law that has been in place for over a decade.

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit Wednesday targeting Colorado’s prohibition on magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition. State lawmakers passed this restriction in 2013 following a devastating mass shooting at an Aurora movie theater that left 12 dead and 58 wounded.

Federal attorneys argue that Colorado’s magazine capacity limits violate Second Amendment constitutional protections for gun ownership. The 11-page legal filing from the Justice Department’s civil rights division references the Supreme Court’s 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which established that Americans have the right to possess commonly-used firearms for legal activities.

According to the federal complaint, magazines exceeding 15 rounds are standard equipment for many widely-owned firearms across the country, including AR-15 style rifles and certain semi-automatic handguns.

“The number of lawfully owned semi-automatic firearms in the United States that utilize a magazine like the ones banned by the state is in the tens of millions,” the lawsuit states. Federal officials contend that prohibiting these magazines effectively restricts ownership of weapons that are “in common use.”

The legal filing emphasizes that such firearms serve “multiple lawful purposes,” including target shooting for recreation, collecting, and personal protection. Justice Department lawyers are seeking a court injunction to stop Colorado from enforcing its magazine capacity restrictions.

Colorado’s top legal official has pledged to fight the federal challenge. Attorney General Phil Weiser released a statement defending his state’s gun safety regulations and criticizing the federal lawsuit.

“Large-capacity magazine laws are responsible policies that satisfy Second Amendment protections, decrease impacts of mass shootings and save lives,” Weiser stated. “The state has a duty to protect Colorado residents from gun violence.”

Weiser also accused federal officials of misusing the Justice Department’s civil rights division, saying the lawsuit “turns the mission of the DOJ’s civil rights division on its head.”

This marks the second gun-related legal action the Trump administration has taken against Colorado this week. On Tuesday, federal attorneys filed a separate challenge to Denver’s municipal ban on certain semi-automatic rifles classified as assault weapons.

Previous attempts to overturn Colorado’s magazine restrictions have failed in federal court. In 2016, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a similar lawsuit brought by county sheriffs, gun retailers, and shooting organizations. The appeals court ruled those plaintiffs could not prove they would suffer personal harm from the laws, meaning they lacked proper legal standing to file suit.

NEW YORK — Legal representatives for former President Donald Trump have filed a motion with a federal appeals court in New York requesting a temporary halt to an $83 million defamation judgment awarded to longtime columnist E. Jean Carroll.

Attorney Justin D. Smith submitted the request to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, asking the court to pause its ruling that upheld the massive award. This would prevent Trump from having to make the payment while pursuing an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Carroll received the $83 million judgment from a Manhattan jury in January 2024. Previously, in May 2023, a separate jury had awarded her $5 million after determining that Trump had sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at a high-end Manhattan department store in 1996, then defamed her following her public account of the incident in 2019.

The former president has consistently and forcefully rejected any claims of sexual assault against Carroll, stating he never knew her. He has also repeatedly alleged that her accusations are politically motivated or intended to boost sales of her book.

According to court documents submitted to the 2nd Circuit, Smith indicated that Carroll’s legal representation would not object to delaying the payment, provided Trump increases his posted bond by $7.4 million to account for potential interest that might accumulate during a Supreme Court review process.

Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, has not yet provided a response to requests for comment.

Smith argued to the appeals court that Trump would face “irreparable harm” if required to pay immediately, citing Carroll’s public statements about her intention to donate the award money. This would make it impossible for the former president to recover the funds should the Supreme Court overturn the decision.

The attorney stated there was a “reasonable probability” the nation’s highest court would agree to hear the appeal, particularly given Trump’s claims of absolute immunity regarding statements made during his presidency.

To bolster his argument, Smith referenced dissenting opinions from three 2nd Circuit judges who opposed a recent decision to reject a full court review of the case. This left intact a three-judge panel’s September ruling that supported the verdict.

Smith expressed confidence that there was “at least a fair prospect that the Supreme Court will reverse the Panel.”

Federal investigators announced Wednesday they determined UCLA’s medical school violated federal law by factoring race into student admissions decisions, as the Trump administration increases oversight of how universities select their incoming classes.

This determination intensifies the ongoing conflict between the Trump administration and UCLA, which has primarily centered on how the main campus handled complaints about antisemitic harassment. The medical school at UCLA did not immediately provide a response when contacted for comment.

College admissions programs that consider race have been prohibited since the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision that banned such practices. While that ruling allowed schools to continue evaluating how students’ personal experiences might reflect broader qualities, Trump has alleged that universities are circumventing the law by using personal essays and other indirect methods to factor in race during admissions, which conservatives consider unlawful discrimination.

The Justice Department launched investigations in March into potential race-based discrimination at medical schools including Stanford, Ohio State, and UC San Diego. The current administration has also focused on undergraduate admissions at competitive universities, requiring them to provide documentation proving compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision.

Following a year-long investigation into UCLA, federal officials concluded the medical school engaged in discrimination against white and Asian American applicants while giving advantages to Black and Hispanic candidates.

The department pointed to statistics revealing that admitted Black and Hispanic students had lower average GPAs and test scores during 2023 and 2024. For instance, Black students admitted in 2024 had an average GPA of 3.72, while Asian Americans averaged 3.84 and white students averaged 3.83.

Federal officials argue this data demonstrates the medical school relied on non-academic criteria to meet diversity objectives.

“As a result of these practices, highly qualified White, Asian, and other students were denied admission on the basis of their race,” said Harmeet Dhillon, head of the department’s Civil Rights Division, in a letter of findings.

Investigators also criticized an application section that asked students to voluntarily identify if they belonged to a marginalized group and describe how that affected them. This question appeared on applications for 2024 and 2025, according to the department.

California voters prohibited affirmative action in college admissions through a 1997 ballot initiative. In court documents filed during the Supreme Court case, the UC system reported this change caused a dramatic decline in underrepresented minorities, particularly at the most competitive campuses.

The filing stated UC subsequently adopted “numerous and wideranging race-neutral measures designed to increase diversity of all sorts, including racial diversity.” Despite these efforts, the system acknowledged continued difficulties in boosting campus diversity.

The Trump administration’s findings create an opportunity for UCLA to voluntarily address the Justice Department’s concerns or potentially face legal consequences. Possible sanctions include the loss of federal funding.

In March, a group of 17 Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit opposing a Trump administration requirement that higher education institutions provide data proving they don’t factor race into admissions decisions.

Military officials are pushing to complete work on a luxury aircraft donated by Qatar’s royal family in time for Fourth of July festivities, according to a government source and someone close to the project.

The White House received the Boeing 747 from Qatar earlier this year and directed the Air Force to quickly bring the plane up to presidential flight standards. L3Harris has been chosen to handle the extensive modifications needed for the aircraft.

Should the company meet its target date, President Donald Trump would have access to a new presidential aircraft for the nation’s 250th birthday celebration. Sources indicate there have been discussions about potentially finishing the work by June 14th to coincide with Trump’s birthday, rather than waiting until the July deadline.

The acceptance of this gift has sparked controversy among Democratic lawmakers and government ethics watchdogs, who argue it creates potential conflicts of interest that might sway presidential policy decisions. Trump has rejected these concerns about taking the 13-year-old aircraft valued at $400 million, calling it “stupid” to refuse such an offer. The current presidential fleet consists of two specially modified 747-200B planes, though any Air Force aircraft carrying the president receives the Air Force One designation.

Converting the luxury jet provided by Qatar’s monarchy involves extensive security enhancements, upgraded communication systems to prevent electronic surveillance, and defensive capabilities against missile attacks, according to aviation specialists.

A military spokesperson confirmed, “The aircraft is on schedule to deliver this summer.” Officials announced Friday that modification work and test flights have been completed, with painting currently underway.

OFFICIAL REPLACEMENT PROGRAM FACES SETBACKS

Meanwhile, Boeing’s official Air Force One replacement initiative – converting two 747-8 aircraft into modern presidential jets – continues to face significant delays, running four years past the original timeline. Current projections show delivery won’t occur until summer 2028, potentially leaving Trump without his new aircraft before his presidency concludes in January 2029.

Boeing remains bound by a fixed-price agreement valued at $3.9 billion from 2018, though actual expenses have grown beyond $5 billion, forcing the company to absorb $2.4 billion in project losses. To address ongoing challenges, Boeing brought in Steve Sullivan in 2025, a former Northrop Grumman leader with experience on the B-21 bomber project.

Military officials recently revealed updated paint colors featuring red, white, dark blue and gold for the executive aircraft fleet – bringing back a design scheme Trump had long advocated for. A similar color scheme had been abandoned in 2022.

This new appearance will be used on the VC-25B – the military’s term for the Boeing 747-8 – replacing the white and blue design that has been standard since President Kennedy’s administration. Four Boeing 757-200 aircraft used by the vice president, cabinet officials and other senior leaders will also receive the updated paint scheme.

Last December, the Air Force acquired two former Lufthansa 747-8i planes for $400 million – designating one for crew training and maintenance practice, while the other will provide replacement parts as officials prepare to eventually phase out the existing fleet that entered service in 1990.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Seven contenders seeking California’s top executive office engaged in a spirited televised debate Tuesday evening, sparring over contentious issues including a proposed wealth tax and government healthcare for undocumented residents.

The CNN-broadcast forum represented one of the final opportunities for candidates to make their case to voters before the June 2nd primary to replace term-limited Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom. With mail-in ballots already circulating, the top two vote-getters will move forward to November’s general election regardless of political affiliation.

While no Republican has occupied the governor’s mansion for over ten years, the crowded field suggests uncertainty with less than four weeks remaining until election day.

Tuesday’s debate featured Democrats Xavier Becerra, former Biden administration health secretary; Katie Porter, ex-congresswoman; billionaire environmental advocate Tom Steyer; San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan; and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Republicans Steve Hilton, a conservative media personality, and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco also participated.

Healthcare policy sparked intense exchanges among the candidates.

The contenders battled over eliminating private insurance for a government-controlled system, a concept that has repeatedly stalled in the state legislature.

Porter, an advocate for government-managed healthcare, challenged Becerra directly about his shifting position on the matter.

“Do you support CalCare — California having its own state-run, single-payer system, yes or no?” Porter asked.

Becerra provided an ambiguous response.

“The most important thing about having a Medicare for All plan is that it includes everyone,” he said. “What we have to do is get to the point where we are covering everyone with something like Medicare for All.”

Mahan, opposing a state-controlled system, later interjected that Becerra “was unable to clearly answer the most important question on healthcare.”

Becerra pushed back: “I did answer that question.”

Steyer aligned with Porter in supporting the proposal, while Bianco, Hilton, and Villaraigosa dismissed it as impractical or financially unrealistic.

Immigration discussions revealed stark partisan divisions.

Steyer, Porter and Becerra endorsed state-funded medical coverage for low-income undocumented immigrants, a program Newsom initially expanded but later reduced. Bianco labeled the approach “ridiculous.”

Democratic candidates strongly criticized Trump administration immigration enforcement operations.

Steyer argued the state should pursue legal action against federal agents and immigration officials who engage in racial profiling or violence against Californians. Mahan noted that San Jose business owners have seen customers disappear because many immigrants fear leaving their homes.

Bianco defended Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities, stating agents were upholding federal law and working to remove individuals he described as “criminals” without legal status.

Hilton, who emigrated from England, emphasized he was the debate’s only immigrant participant. He cautioned against mixing legal and unauthorized immigration issues.

“Although it is the federal government’s responsibility to determine and implement immigration policy, I think it’s important that all the laws are peacefully enforced,” Hilton said. “As governor, I would make sure that we work with the federal government to enforce our laws.”

Democratic candidates repeatedly stressed their opposition to Trump’s immigration agenda.

Neither Hilton, who has Trump’s backing, nor Bianco frequently mentioned the former president, except to argue that Democrats wrongly hold him responsible for state problems.

Becerra referenced Trump most frequently, highlighting his numerous lawsuits against the administration during his tenure as state attorney general from 2017 to 2021, before Biden appointed him health secretary.

“I’m going to repeat Donald Trump as often as I have because he’s the menace,” Becerra declared.

When Villaraigosa pressed Hilton to confirm Trump’s 2020 election defeat, Hilton declined to respond.

“Endlessly going on about Donald Trump doesn’t serve the needs of the struggling families and small businesses,” Hilton said.

Mahan attempted to stake out centrist ground. He criticized Becerra for attributing high fuel costs entirely to Trump, while noting San Jose has challenged the Trump administration’s immigration policies in court. He called Republican support for Trump’s “cruel and ineffective policies” disqualifying.

Porter offered a blunt assessment: “Donald Trump sucks.”

Tax policy discussions centered on wealth inequality measures.

Steyer stood alone in endorsing a proposed billionaire tax likely appearing on November ballots. The one-time levy would restore funding eliminated by Trump-era cuts that reduced healthcare access for low-income residents.

Porter supports higher taxes on California’s wealthiest residents but characterized the proposed tax as a short-term solution to systemic problems.

Mahan proposed suspending gasoline taxes to ease burdens on working families.

Hilton suggested eliminating income taxes on the first $100,000 of earnings.

Both Mahan and Steyer advocated taxing artificial intelligence companies and directing revenue toward worker support programs, including job training initiatives.

“The answer is to tax these companies, not to regulate them to the point that they simply go to other places,” Mahan said.

PORTSMOUTH, Va. — A prominent Virginia state senator who has championed cannabis reform throughout her political career now finds herself at the center of a federal investigation after law enforcement raided her marijuana business this week.

Senator L. Louise Lucas, known for her passionate advocacy on cannabis legalization, has built much of her legislative agenda around reforming drug laws that she believes unfairly target African American communities. Her commitment to the cause led her not only to author legalization legislation but also to establish her own cannabis retail operation.

Federal agents conducted a court-authorized search at Lucas’s business on Wednesday, though the FBI has not disclosed the specific focus of their investigation. The raid has thrust the longtime politician’s three-decade career back into the spotlight.

Lucas made history in 2019 when she became Virginia’s first Black woman to serve as Senate president pro tempore following the Democratic takeover of the chamber.

Her political journey has not been without controversy. In 2020, she faced felony accusations related to her participation in a demonstration against a Confederate memorial, though a judge ultimately threw out those charges.

A Portsmouth native, Lucas broke barriers early in her career as the first woman to work as a ship fitter at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, according to state library records. She currently leads a Portsmouth company that provides housing, daily programming, and transportation services for adults with intellectual disabilities.

Lucas launched The Cannabis Outlet in her hometown of Portsmouth in 2021, selling legally permitted hemp and CBD merchandise.

“Let’s talk about pot,” Lucas wrote on social media platform X in 2022. “Yes, we legalized it and I even opened the Cannabis Outlet after we did! But the job isn’t done. People are still in jail for something that is legal today.”

Witnesses reported seeing an armored FBI vehicle and multiple federal agents at Lucas’s cannabis shop on Wednesday. The FBI confirmed only that agents were executing a court-approved search warrant in Portsmouth.

WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that Iranian officials are eager to enter negotiations and reach an agreement with the United States, describing the current diplomatic situation as progressing well.

Speaking during a White House event, Trump expressed optimism about the diplomatic efforts. “We’re doing very well in Iran. It’s going very smoothly, and we’ll see what happens. They want to make a deal, they want to negotiate,” the former president stated.

Trump further emphasized Iran’s apparent willingness to engage in talks. “We’re dealing with people that want to make a deal very much, and we’ll see whether or not they can make a deal that’s satisfactory to us,” he added.

Meanwhile, Iranian officials confirmed Wednesday they are examining a fresh proposal from the United States. According to sources familiar with the matter, both Washington and Tehran are working toward finalizing a brief memorandum aimed at resolving Gulf region conflicts, though complex matters including Iran’s nuclear activities would be addressed in future discussions.

WASHINGTON — The White House revealed Wednesday that President Donald Trump has approved a new counterterrorism strategy placing the elimination of drug cartels throughout the Western Hemisphere at the forefront of national security priorities.

This strategic document follows the administration’s previously released national security framework that identified the hemisphere as America’s primary area of focus.

The Trump administration has taken bold steps to transform the region, including efforts to remove Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela’s presidency, conducting numerous military operations against suspected cartel vessels, and applying fresh pressure on Cuba’s communist leadership.

Sebastian Gorka, the White House’s counterterrorism czar who led the development of this new approach, explained that the priority shift reflects a stark reality: drug cartels have caused more American deaths through illicit narcotics than the number of U.S. military personnel killed in overseas conflicts since World War II.

“Whether it is strangling their illicit funds, whether it is tracking their drug boats, we will not permit them to kill Americans on a massive scale,” Gorka said in a telephone call with reporters to announce the strategy.

This initiative represents another demonstration of the administration’s dedication to concentrating U.S. foreign policy efforts on the Western Hemisphere while simultaneously managing global challenges.

Since early September, the Republican administration’s campaign of destroying suspected drug-trafficking boats in Latin American waters has continued, resulting in at least 191 total fatalities.

Simultaneously, Trump has worked to encourage regional leaders to collaborate more extensively with the United States in combating cartels and conducting their own military operations against drug traffickers and international gangs that he characterizes as an “unacceptable threat” to hemispheric security.

According to Gorka, the administration’s additional counterterrorism objectives include targeting and eliminating Islamic military organizations capable of conducting operations against the United States; identifying and neutralizing violent secular political groups with anti-American, “radically pro-gender,” or anarchist ideologies; and strengthening efforts to prevent non-state actors from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Gorka indicated that administration officials plan to meet with allies later this week to explore ways they can strengthen their counterterrorism approaches.

“As the president made very clear, we will measure your seriousness as a partner and ally by how much you bring to the table,” he said. “So we expect more — from our partners in the Middle East, as well as elsewhere.”

Federal agents executed a search warrant at the district office of Virginia Senate President L. Louise Lucas on Wednesday as part of an ongoing corruption investigation, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

The Portsmouth office belongs to the Democratic state senator, who played a prominent role in Virginia’s recent redistricting efforts.

Federal Bureau of Investigation officials confirmed they were executing a court-approved search warrant in Portsmouth but provided no additional details. The source who verified the search of Lucas’s office requested anonymity because they were not permitted to publicly discuss the active investigation.

Former President Donald Trump has demonstrated his continued influence within the Republican Party after his endorsed candidates successfully defeated nearly all Indiana state senators who had previously opposed his redistricting agenda five months earlier.

The primary election outcomes are expected to strengthen Trump’s position as he prepares for additional Republican contests where he aims to remove more sitting officials, including Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy and Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie.

Tuesday’s Indiana results also increase pressure on GOP legislators in other states to aggressively pursue congressional redistricting before November’s general election. Special legislative sessions have already commenced in Alabama and Tennessee that could reduce Black voter influence in districts that typically lean Democratic, while Trump supporters in South Carolina are pushing for similar actions.

Indiana State Senator Linda Rogers, who cast a vote against redistricting and subsequently lost her position on Tuesday, warned the results “will probably discourage others in other states.”

“If someone is going to ask you to take a tough vote, you may think twice about your conscience and what’s best for your community and instead what’s best for you and your career,” Rogers explained.

While redistricting initiatives launched last year when Trump identified a chance to provide Republicans with additional advantages, they gained momentum following last week’s Supreme Court decision that eliminated a key Voting Rights Act provision affecting how political boundaries are established.

Trump’s Indiana success, supported by over $8.3 million in campaign funding for races that typically receive minimal financial investment, reinforced the former president’s ongoing dominance within the Republican Party he has controlled for ten years, even as he faces declining approval ratings and approaches lame-duck status.

“Historic night for Indiana as Republicans stood with me and President Trump to nominate some great America First conservatives,” Indiana Governor Mike Braun posted on social media. “I look forward to winning big in November and serving Hoosiers with this team in the statehouse!”

The former president supported primary opponents against seven Republican state senators who had rejected his December redistricting proposal. Five of Trump’s chosen candidates secured victories, while one contest remained undecided.

Trump maintained a measured approach on social media regarding the election results. He posted several images celebrating his endorsed candidates’ wins in both Indiana and Ohio, which also conducted primaries Tuesday, but refrained from additional boasting or renewed criticism of Massie or Cassidy.

Massie has frustrated the president by advocating for the release of Jeffrey Epstein case documents. Cassidy joined other Republican senators in voting to convict Trump during his 2021 impeachment trial following the January 6 Capitol riot.

James Blair, a senior Trump political advisor, took a more direct approach by sharing a “Gladiator” movie image showing Russell Crowe’s character Maximus celebrating after a combat victory.

Rogers faced nearly $670,000 in television advertisements opposing her candidacy, financed by political action committees linked to Braun and Indiana Senator Jim Banks.

She expressed no regret about her redistricting vote.

“It would have been easy for me to hit that ‘yes’ button,” Rogers stated. “To hear the number of people who asked me not to, then the number of people who thanked me, would mean I wasn’t representing them.”

Louisiana’s primary featuring Trump’s endorsement of Representative Julie Letlow against Cassidy is scheduled for May 16. Kentucky will hold its primary May 19, where Trump has backed retired Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein to challenge Massie.

President Donald Trump issued a stark warning on social media Wednesday, threatening intensified military action against Iran unless the country accepts terms of a potential peace deal that could conclude their ongoing conflict.

“If they don’t agree, the bombing starts, and it will be, sadly, at a much higher level and intensity than it was before,” Trump’s post said.

According to Axios reporting, the White House is close to finalizing a brief, one-page agreement with Iran that would bring the war to an end. The proposed deal reportedly contains several key elements: halting Iranian uranium enrichment activities, removing U.S. economic sanctions, releasing frozen Iranian assets, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.

In his social media statement, Trump suggested that energy shipments of oil and natural gas could resume if Iran agrees to the undisclosed terms. However, he acknowledged uncertainty about Iran’s willingness to accept the proposal.

Trump wrote that it was “perhaps a big assumption” that Iran would agree to the terms being offered by the United States.

White House officials declined to provide additional details or respond to inquiries about the reported negotiations.

Meanwhile, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick faced questioning Wednesday before a House panel investigating Jeffrey Epstein. Lawmakers are examining Lutnick’s interactions with the convicted sex offender following 2008. Despite providing conflicting accounts of his relationship with Epstein, Lutnick maintains his innocence and expressed willingness to participate in the private congressional interview.

Tuesday’s electoral results across Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan painted a familiar political landscape heading into November’s midterm contests. Trump continues to wield significant influence within Republican circles, though Democratic candidates appear to be gaining ground.

In Indiana specifically, Trump successfully backed five candidates in primary races, supported by over $8.3 million in campaign spending. The president targeted seven Republican state senators who had opposed his congressional redistricting proposal, with five of his endorsed challengers emerging victorious.

Trump has also renewed his public disagreements with Pope Leo XIV, the first American-born pontiff, potentially creating diplomatic complications for Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s planned Vatican visit this week. In a recent interview, Trump criticized the Pope’s stance on Iran and immigration policies, claiming the religious leader’s positions make the world less secure.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi expressed his nation’s concern about the U.S.-Iran conflict during meetings with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Beijing. This marked Araghchi’s first visit to China since hostilities began on February 28. The Trump administration is encouraging China to leverage its economic and political relationships with Tehran to pressure Iran into reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

Recent polling data from AP-NORC reveals that approximately one-third of American adults report knowing someone whose life has been affected by immigration enforcement measures over the past year. Hispanic Americans are particularly impacted, with more than half reporting personal connections to individuals who have altered their daily routines, travel plans, or documentation practices due to immigration concerns.

Democratic candidates have demonstrated unexpected strength in recent special elections nationwide, winning in traditionally challenging districts and narrowing margins even in losses. While higher midterm turnout could change these dynamics, the trend has energized Democratic supporters and concerned Republicans about maintaining their congressional control.

WASHINGTON — Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick faced questioning Wednesday during a House committee session focused on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as congressional members demanded explanations for Lutnick’s interactions with Epstein following his 2008 guilty plea for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

The Cabinet member under President Donald Trump represents the most recent high-profile political figure to testify before the House Oversight Committee. Despite providing conflicting accounts regarding his connection to Epstein, Lutnick maintains his innocence and expressed willingness to participate in the private legislative session.

The recorded testimony served as an examination of congressional willingness to hold accountable influential individuals who maintained associations with Epstein despite public knowledge of his conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Trump’s Republican leadership has attempted without success to distance itself from this matter for over twelve months.

Among Trump administration officials beyond the president himself, Lutnick holds the highest position mentioned in Epstein case documentation. Trump has repeatedly denied awareness of Epstein’s criminal activities and stated their association ended years prior.

Multiple Democratic lawmakers have demanded Lutnick’s resignation, while certain Republicans, including South Carolina Representative Nancy Mace, have insisted he should provide testimony to the Oversight committee.

Lutnick has minimized his connections to Epstein, who previously lived in his New York City neighborhood. During Democratic questioning at an unrelated hearing this year, he characterized their interaction as limited email exchanges and two meetings during 2011 and 2012.

However, this acknowledgment contradicted his earlier podcast statement from last year, where he claimed deciding to avoid being alone with Epstein after a 2005 visit to Epstein’s residence that upset both Lutnick and his spouse.

Epstein entered a guilty plea in 2008 to Florida state sex crime charges, including soliciting prostitution from a minor.

“I did not have any relationship with him. I barely had anything to do with him,” Lutnick stated to senators in February during questioning about Epstein at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee session.

Yet Lutnick, formerly leading the Cantor Fitzgerald brokerage and investment firm, actually spent an hour at Epstein’s residence in 2011. His family subsequently visited Epstein’s notorious private island for lunch in 2012.

Released federal case documents revealed ongoing email correspondence between the two men. In 2018, Lutnick contacted Epstein regarding a proposed museum expansion in their shared neighborhood that would have obstructed views from their properties. Epstein contributed $50,000 to a 2017 dinner celebrating Lutnick, while Lutnick extended an invitation to Epstein for a 2015 Hillary Clinton fundraising event. Both men invested in identical business opportunities in 2013.

White House officials continue backing Lutnick, who championed Trump’s comprehensive tariff policies. He has maintained a lengthy relationship with Trump and assisted with fundraising efforts for both 2020 and 2024 campaigns.

The House Oversight Committee plans to receive testimony on May 29 from Pam Bondi, who departed her attorney general position last month.

Epstein died in a New York detention facility in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking allegations.

A federal intelligence assessment has revealed that the ongoing U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran may have influenced the suspect who allegedly tried to assassinate President Donald Trump at last month’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

According to a Department of Homeland Security intelligence report distributed to law enforcement agencies across the country, Cole Allen harbored “multiple social and political grievances” and the Iran conflict “may have contributed to his decision to conduct the attack.” The preliminary assessment, dated April 27, cited Allen’s social media posts that were critical of American involvement in the war.

This intelligence briefing provides the clearest insight yet into what may have driven the failed April 25 attack on the annual media event. While still preliminary, the findings represent the strongest indication to date that the Iran conflict, which has resulted in thousands of casualties across the Middle East and disrupted global markets, could have served as a catalyst.

The document, labeled a “Critical Incident Note,” was secured through public records requests by the transparency organization Property of the People and provided to Reuters.

Neither the Department of Homeland Security nor the Justice Department responded immediately to requests for comment. The FBI declined to provide a statement.

This week, federal prosecutors filed an additional charge against Allen for assaulting a federal officer, alleging he opened fire on a Secret Service agent at a security checkpoint. He already faced charges of attempted assassination, discharging a firearm during a violent crime, and illegally transporting weapons and ammunition across state boundaries. Allen has not yet entered a plea.

Federal authorities have released limited information about Allen’s suspected motives, referencing only an email he sent to family members on the evening of the attack. Officials have described the message as a manifesto expressing frustration with the current administration and mentioning his intent to target the “traitor” scheduled to speak, though Trump was not specifically named.

Court filings indicate prosecutors believe Allen “disagreed” with Trump’s policies and “wanted to ‘fight back’ against government policies and decisions that he found morally objectionable.”

Federal investigators are conducting an extensive analysis of Allen’s online presence and digital communications as they work to understand his motivations, according to a senior law enforcement source who requested anonymity.

“It’s being closely looked at,” the official said.

The investigation encompasses posts from a Bluesky social media profile connected to Allen that shared numerous anti-Trump messages in the weeks before the incident. These posts included condemnation of U.S. actions in Iran as well as criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, Elon Musk, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The account promoted a post demanding Trump’s impeachment following his April 7 statement threatening to destroy Iranian civilization, made just hours before Trump agreed to a ceasefire. It also shared criticism targeting reporters planning to attend the correspondents’ dinner.

Investigators have also examined a 2024 post where an account linked to Allen appeared to refer to Trump as “the devil” while quoting scripture in response to a message from Trump’s daughter Tiffany.

The emphasis on Allen’s digital activity is partly intended to prevent conspiracy theories about the suspect’s motivations and online behavior, the official explained, noting that speculation surrounding the online activity of the individual who shot at Trump during a 2024 campaign event in Butler, Pennsylvania, had fueled widespread conspiracy theories.

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans now believe the United States has lost its reputation as a welcoming destination for immigrants, according to new polling data from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The survey of more than 2,500 adults nationwide reveals that approximately 60% of respondents think America was once a favorable place for immigrants to settle but no longer holds that distinction. Roughly one-third of those polled — including more than half of Hispanic respondents — report that either they or someone in their circle has begun carrying citizenship documentation, faced detention or removal proceedings, altered travel arrangements, or modified daily activities like attending work or school due to immigration status concerns within the past year.

These findings emerge as the nation’s highest court weighs whether the current administration can limit automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil, following months of intensified immigration enforcement operations and large-scale deportation efforts.

Reid Gibson, a 72-year-old retired Missouri resident who identifies as politically independent, expressed strong criticism of current immigration policies. Gibson remains hopeful that the country will eventually return to more welcoming practices, though he fears “it may take many years to reverse the damage that the Trump administration has inflicted” through its approach.

Gibson’s concerns extend to his own family. His stepdaughter now carries her passport regularly due to worries that her appearance might make her a target during enforcement actions.

“It’s just plain wrong,” Gibson stated. “This is not a good country for immigrants anymore.”

The polling data indicates that Americans have modified their behavior in response to increased enforcement activities over the past year, as the administration has expanded detention operations while pursuing what officials describe as the nation’s largest deportation campaign.

Survey results show Democrats are more likely than Republicans or independents to personally know someone affected by these policies, and individuals with such connections are more inclined to view America as no longer immigrant-friendly.

Kathy Bailey, a 79-year-old Illinois Democrat, has witnessed these policy impacts firsthand at her local swimming facility. Two regular participants in her swim class — both naturalized American citizens — now bring their passports whenever they leave home. Bailey noted that one participant, originally from Latin America, feels particularly vulnerable in their predominantly white community.

“She’s an American citizen now, but she’s so scared that she has to carry her passport,” Bailey explained. “She’s just another sweet old grandmother swimming at 5 in the morning.”

Hispanic adults report significantly higher rates of personal impact, with approximately 60% saying they or someone they know has experienced enforcement-related effects, compared to much lower percentages among Black or white adults.

“This is terrible for these women!” Bailey exclaimed. “I’m just stunned at what we are coming to.”

Nick Grivas, a 40-year-old Massachusetts resident, draws connections between current policies and his own family history, recalling his grandfather’s journey from Greece to America. This personal background influences his belief that the United States has ceased being a land of opportunity for newcomers.

“We can see how we’re treating children and the children of the immigrants, and we’re not viewing them as potential future Americans,” Grivas observed.

The polling shows roughly 30% of adults still consider America a great destination for immigrants, while approximately 10% believe it never was. The view that America has lost its immigrant-friendly status is more prevalent among Democrats, independents, and foreign-born residents.

Grivas, who identifies as a Democrat, worries that restrictive federal policies could harm the country by discouraging newcomers from establishing roots in their communities, particularly when their long-term residence remains uncertain.

“You’re less willing to commit to the project if you don’t think that you’re gonna be able to stay,” he explained.

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments regarding President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship by declaring that children born to unauthorized or temporary residents would not automatically receive American citizenship.

About two-thirds of poll respondents support automatic citizenship for all children born within U.S. borders, a position backed by most Democrats and independents. Republican support is lower at 44%. The survey also reveals some conflicted views, with respondents supporting birthright citizenship in general while opposing it under certain specific conditions.

Linda Steele, a 70-year-old Florida Republican, opposes automatic citizenship, believing only children of American citizens should receive it. Steele argues that foreign nationals residing legally in the United States — whether for employment or education — should not be able to have children who automatically become citizens.

“That shouldn’t be allowed,” she said. “They’re just here visiting or going to school.”

When presented with specific scenarios, about 60% of adults support birthright citizenship for children born to parents holding legal tourist visas, while only half support it for those born to unauthorized residents. Support increases to 75% for children born to parents with legal work visas, with much of this additional backing coming from Republicans who find this situation more acceptable.

Kevin Craig, a 57-year-old from Wilmington, North Carolina, who leans conservative, opposes automatic citizenship grants. Craig believes there should be “at least some opportunity for intervention by a human being who can make some sort of a judgment.”

However, he added: “I think my personal opinion is that I can’t think of a situation where it would not be granted.”

The AP-NORC survey of 2,596 adults was conducted April 16-20 using NORC’s AmeriSpeak Panel, designed to represent the U.S. population. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.

A fresh survey indicates that supporters of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement will prioritize cost reduction over other health concerns when casting their ballots in November’s midterm elections.

According to research conducted by KFF, a nonpartisan health policy organization, reducing expenses ranks as the primary health concern for MAHA supporters across party lines, with at least half stating this issue will significantly influence their voting decisions and candidate preferences.

Cost concerns continue to challenge a president who made affordability a central campaign promise. Trump’s approval numbers have dropped to record lows as the conflict with Iran drives up living expenses, with gas prices climbing and restaurant sales declining due to the war’s economic impact.

These financial worries are anticipated to damage Republican chances of keeping congressional control this year.

The KFF survey found that 61% of all participants said medical costs would significantly affect their November voting choices, placing this concern above food safety and vaccination policy issues.

“This poll really shows that the issues the MAHA movement has elevated resonate broadly with the American public, but even for voters who support MAHA, healthcare costs are the dominant priority by a wide margin,” said Audrey Kearney, senior survey analyst at KFF.

Researchers conducted the study April 14-19 through online and phone interviews with 1,343 U.S. adults representing the national population. Approximately 500 participants identified as MAHA movement supporters, according to KFF.

The organization discovered that 42% of MAHA voters selected cost reduction as their top federal health priority when forced to choose one issue. This compared to 21% who emphasized limiting chemical food additives and 10% who prioritized reviewing vaccine safety protocols.

Survey results carried a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Trump previously stated he would allow Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to “go wild” on health policy matters. Kennedy’s efforts to reduce recommended childhood vaccinations and modify dietary guidelines have satisfied MAHA supporters.

However, the administration has also frustrated movement members with certain decisions, including a February directive protecting domestic production of a commonly used herbicide and April’s appointment of a former COVID response official to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“He shook Bobby Kennedy’s hand and said he’d let him go wild. And nothing has been done to reduce our children’s exposure to toxic pesticides,” Zen Honeycutt, who founded Moms Across America, told Reuters.

The KFF poll revealed that public majorities believe insufficient regulation exists for chemical food additives and agricultural pesticides.

The Trump administration received poor approval ratings on two key MAHA priorities. Survey results showed 38% of respondents approved of vaccine policy management and 46% supported food policy handling.

Kennedy’s approval ratings have stayed relatively stable since September and January polling, with roughly four in ten voters supporting his performance as health secretary, KFF reported.

Honeycutt expressed continued support for Kennedy while hoping the administration will change direction on pesticide policies.

“This administration has done more for health than any other administration ever in recorded history,” Honeycutt said. “It was brilliant of Trump to bring Kennedy on board.”

The health secretary has recently pursued quick victories before the midterms after White House pressure led him to scale back vaccine initiatives that prompted sharp criticism from major medical organizations.

Secretary of State Rubio has announced that American military combat activities in Iran have concluded, with the administration now prioritizing diplomatic negotiations moving forward.

Tuesday’s primary elections in Ohio and Indiana have provided political analysts with key insights as the nation prepares for the upcoming midterm elections. The results from these contests are being closely examined for trends that could influence races across the country.

Recent polling data indicates that Democratic candidates appear to be positioned favorably heading into the midterm election cycle, suggesting potential advantages as campaigns intensify in the coming months.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Republicans in South Carolina have launched an effort to reshape congressional boundaries targeting a district with a Black majority, following a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that weakened safeguards for minority representation in voting.

With encouragement from President Donald Trump, GOP lawmakers in the Palmetto State are working to alter the congressional map in hopes of capturing all seven of the state’s House seats, including one currently represented by a longtime Black Democratic congressman.

South Carolina’s initiative mirrors similar actions already underway across the South. Special legislative sessions are currently happening in Alabama and Tennessee to modify their federal House districts, while Louisiana officials are also preparing new congressional boundaries after the Supreme Court invalidated their existing map last week.

The nation’s highest court determined that Louisiana placed excessive emphasis on racial considerations when establishing a second district with a Black majority while trying to follow Voting Rights Act requirements. This decision dramatically changed how the law has been interpreted for decades, providing Republicans with justification to challenge majority-Black districts that typically elect Democratic candidates.

The court’s decision has intensified nationwide redistricting conflicts before November’s midterm elections, which will decide control of the narrowly divided House of Representatives.

Following Trump’s encouragement for Texas to redraw its House districts last year, eight states have now implemented new congressional maps. Republicans believe they could pick up as many as 13 seats from these changes, while Democrats estimate they might gain up to 10. However, some newly drawn districts may be competitive in November, potentially limiting gains for both parties.

Democratic Representative Jim Clyburn has served South Carolina’s 6th Congressional District since it was restructured to benefit minority voters in 1992, and he’s seeking his 18th term. However, his reelection prospects could become more challenging if Republicans successfully redraw his district boundaries.

State legislative leaders have indicated that any redistricting initiative requires approval from two-thirds of both the House and Senate. The matter could be addressed as early as Wednesday, though success depends on near-unanimous Republican support.

Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey has cautioned that redistricting efforts might backfire due to narrow political margins, potentially creating a second Democratic House seat. Massey informed reporters Tuesday that he had a respectful discussion with Trump regarding redistricting, with both expressing their respective concerns.

The state’s primary elections are set for June 9, with early voting beginning in three weeks.

On Wednesday, the House may consider legislation allowing Alabama to conduct a special congressional primary if the Supreme Court permits the state to modify its House districts.

Based on the court’s Louisiana ruling, Alabama officials have requested that courts suspend a judicial mandate requiring a House map with two districts containing significant Black populations. Republicans prefer using a 2023 Legislature-approved map that could help the GOP win at least one of those seats currently held by Democrats.

Alabama’s primaries are planned for May 19. If the Supreme Court approves the state’s request after or close to the primary date, proposed legislation would disregard those primary results and direct the governor to schedule new primaries under revised district lines.

Democrats have criticized the legislation as a Republican attempt to seize power that recalls the state’s disgraceful history of denying Black citizens equal rights and representation.

Republicans are “working to secure an electoral victory by taking Alabama back to the Jim Crow era, and we won’t go back,” Democratic Representative Terri Sewell declared to a crowd assembled outside the Alabama Statehouse.

Republican Governor Bill Lee has convened Tennessee lawmakers for a special session to examine a Trump-endorsed proposal that could dismantle the state’s only Democratic-held House district, which centers on Memphis, a majority-Black city. Republicans provided few details about the plan Tuesday.

As the Senate commenced work Tuesday, protesters in the hallways could be heard shouting “shame, shame, shame” inside the chamber. On the floor, Senator Raumesh Akbari, a Black Democrat from Memphis, described the redistricting as “an act of hate.”

Martin Luther King III wrote to Tennessee legislative leaders expressing “grave concern” about plans to split Memphis, stating the action could undermine the voting rights work accomplished by his father, Martin Luther King Jr.

Tennessee’s candidate filing period concluded in March, with the primary election scheduled for August 6.

Following last week’s Supreme Court ruling, Republican Governor Mike Landry delayed Louisiana’s May 16 congressional primary to provide time for lawmakers to approve new House districts. Republican State Senator Caleb Kleinpeter, who chairs a redistricting committee, announced plans for a public hearing Friday.

Louisiana voters had already submitted more than 41,000 absentee ballots by last Thursday when Landry suspended the House primaries, according to the Secretary of State’s Office. This represents about one-third of all distributed absentee ballots, with approximately 19,000 from registered Democrats, 17,000 from registered Republicans, and the remainder from unaffiliated voters.

Democrats and civil rights organizations have filed multiple lawsuits challenging Louisiana’s congressional primary suspension.

Citizens in Indiana and Ohio cast ballots Tuesday in crucial primary contests that will measure former President Donald Trump’s continued sway over the Republican Party while setting the stage for November’s midterm elections. At the same time, political observers are monitoring a competitive Michigan state Senate race that has the potential to flip control of that legislative body.

___

This represents a curated collection of photographs assembled by Associated Press photo editors.