Category: Politics

WASHINGTON – Federal immigration enforcement officers will continue their airport security assignments indefinitely, according to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.

During a Wednesday interview on Fox Business, Duffy stated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel will remain at airports across the United States “as long as they’re needed” to support security screening operations.

The announcement indicates the federal government plans to maintain the enhanced security presence at commercial airports for the foreseeable future.

NASHVILLE, N.C. — At 65 years old, Ricky Brinkley has spent almost his entire life in rural North Carolina, preferring life “out in the county” away from the bright lights and activity of nearby small towns.

However, the retired truck driver feels overlooked during election season in this crucial swing state.

“People don’t come out like they should and ask you how you feel about things,” Brinkley explained while working behind the counter at his daughter’s beauty supply shop near the Nashville courthouse. “You want somebody to vote, but you don’t want to do nothing to get the vote. No, it don’t work that way.”

Brinkley represents a group of rural Black voters that Democrats have consistently struggled to engage as they attempt to challenge Republican dominance in these areas. This presents a critical challenge for a party that typically performs well with Black voters but struggles in rural communities.

Mobilizing these voters could help former Governor Roy Cooper secure victory in a competitive U.S. Senate contest this year and shift the balance of power in Washington. Such success might also transform presidential campaigns, offering Democrats an additional route to the White House.

“People want to look at the word ‘rural’ in North Carolina and equate it to the word ‘white,’” explained state party chair Anderson Clayton, a 28-year-old leader who secured her position three years ago by promising to extend the party’s reach beyond urban centers. “In my vision of a Democratic Party, when you talk about reaching out to rural voters, you are talking about rural Black voters.”

The Rev. James Gailliard, a former state legislator who pastors a large Black church in Rocky Mount, expressed the situation more directly.

“You don’t win this state in Durham,” Gailliard stated. “You win it in the east.”

While North Carolina is recognized for its university-rich Research Triangle encompassing Durham, Raleigh and Chapel Hill, plus Charlotte’s financial center, the state also contains vast expanses of small communities and rural territories where Democrats have steadily lost influence over recent decades.

This decline isn’t solely due to white voters shifting toward Republicans. It also stems from Black voters with Democratic leanings participating in elections less frequently than their urban peers. These rural Black communities are primarily located east of the triangle, spreading along curving state roads through small municipalities, flat terrain and agricultural areas toward the Atlantic shore.

Cooper, age 68, secured two gubernatorial terms and four terms as state attorney general. Nevertheless, Republicans maintain control of state courts and the legislature, and they’ve redesigned congressional boundaries to strengthen their position in the U.S. House. Donald Trump has delivered North Carolina to Republicans in all three of his presidential campaigns.

As a Nash County native, Cooper has already conducted roundtable discussions with Black farmers, entrepreneurs and community leaders in eastern North Carolina during recent months, along with students from North Carolina A&T University, a historically Black institution that attracts students statewide. His campaign pledges comprehensive organizing across the state before November.

However, Gailliard believes more action is necessary.

The founding pastor of Word Tabernacle Church, Gailliard was among the Black state legislators who lost their positions following Republican-controlled redistricting. He emphasized that regaining influence will demand grassroots organizing and investment from national Democrats, support he found difficult to obtain from Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign.

“I couldn’t get any traction,” Gailliard remembered. “I begged them to bring her to Rocky Mount. I said, ‘Listen, Rocky Mount is the gateway to the East. If we crack Rocky Mount, we’ve cracked the East.’ Could not convince them to come. Two weeks later, guess who’s in Rocky Mount? Donald Trump.”

The Harris campaign dispatched former President Bill Clinton to the region instead.

Gailliard noted that Cooper requires supporters like him to win election.

“Roy is a great friend, and I’m gonna run my butt off to help him in every way, but I’m not banking on his coattails,” Gailliard said. “I’m going to do the opposite. I’m going to grow coattails for him.”

Clayton, the state party chair, indicated that the national party and its financial backers haven’t focused on North Carolina early enough in recent election cycles.

She reported relying primarily on local funding to support 25 full-time staff members, more than triple the state party’s workforce before the 2022 midterm elections.

Bertie County Democratic chairwoman Camille Taylor, whose Powellsville hometown has under 200 residents, confirmed she’s noticed this transformation.

She maintains regular contact with a field organizer in nearby Greenville, the largest city near northeastern counties with significant Black populations. However, she noted it’s particularly challenging to convince rural voters to care about elections beyond the presidency, despite her message that “these are the races and the people that you’re going to interact with more.”

Democrats have fielded candidates in all 170 legislative districts — two are Democratic-leaning independents — and every U.S. House district. State Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls, a prominent civil rights lawyer and Black woman, is seeking statewide reelection.

Gailliard reported identifying several hundred nonprofits, neighborhood groups and other organizations capable of conducting issue-focused work in his district as the election nears. He aims to pair each organization with specific precincts, directing funding for them to contact voters and encourage participation.

He prefers training volunteers from Democratic and progressive organizations rather than having outsiders directly contact rural Black voters.

“We can’t have 21-year-old recent college graduates from Utah knocking doors at $22 an hour in the hood,” Gailliard said. “That just does not work. They’re not a trusted messenger.”

Approximately 2 in 10 North Carolina voters during the 2024 and 2020 presidential elections were Black, according to AP VoteCast, matching the 2022 Senate election.

About 4 in 10 Black voters in North Carolina’s most recent presidential election reported living in small towns or rural areas, comparable to the percentage living in suburbs. Only around one-quarter indicated they live in urban locations.

Minor changes in voter persuasion matter significantly, especially in tight races. In 2008, Barack Obama became the most recent Democratic presidential nominee to capture North Carolina, winning by just 14,000 votes among 4.3 million cast.

Voter participation between the 2020 and 2024 elections dropped more significantly in North Carolina counties with larger Black populations.

Counties where Black voters comprise roughly 30% to 40% of the electorate experienced the steepest decline, with participation falling by over 3 percentage points. Counties with smaller Black populations saw more moderate decreases of approximately 1 percentage point. Overall, participation remains higher in counties with fewer Black voters.

Gailliard emphasized that Democrats cannot undervalue the importance of simply requesting someone’s vote.

“Black and rural voters are not transactional,” he explained. “They are relational.”

Back in Nashville at the beauty supply shop, Brinkley concurred.

“You get to be a big wheel, and you can forget where you came from,” Brinkley observed. “I ain’t gonna say Roy forgot. He’s a hometown guy, so to speak, but I don’t expect to see him out here walking.”

Brinkley clarified that if he participates in voting, it would be for Cooper and other Democrats — but only if he decides to vote.

“I could. I could. I may vote,” he said. “There’s just so much going on.”

The White House has scheduled a national address by President Trump for Wednesday evening at 9 p.m. Eastern time concerning the Iran conflict.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the upcoming speech, describing it as delivering “an important update” to the American people, though she declined to elaborate on what specific information the President plans to share.

The scheduled address comes amid ongoing developments in the Iran war, with the administration previously indicating that U.S. involvement in the conflict could conclude in the coming weeks.

The nation’s highest court will examine Wednesday whether President Donald Trump can legally end automatic citizenship for certain children born on American soil, in a case that could fundamentally alter how the Constitution has been understood for more than a century.

The nine justices will review the administration’s challenge to a federal court ruling that halted Trump’s executive order. That directive instructed government agencies to stop recognizing citizenship for newborns whose parents are neither U.S. citizens nor permanent residents with green cards.

Trump is scheduled to attend the oral arguments personally, according to his public calendar.

A federal judge previously determined that Trump’s policy conflicts with citizenship provisions in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment and existing federal statutes that establish birthright citizenship. The ruling came in response to a class-action case filed by families whose children’s citizenship status would be jeopardized under the new policy.

Restricting automatic citizenship has become a central goal for the Republican leader, who signed the executive order during his first day back in the White House last year as part of broader immigration enforcement measures. Opposition groups have characterized his immigration agenda as discriminatory based on race and religion.

For generations, the 14th Amendment has been understood to guarantee citizenship for all babies born within U.S. borders, with very limited exceptions like children of foreign diplomats or enemy forces during wartime.

The constitutional language in question, called the Citizenship Clause, reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Trump’s legal team argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires more than simply being born on American soil for citizenship eligibility. They contend it excludes babies born to immigrants without legal status or those with temporary legal presence, such as international students or workers on temporary visas.

According to the administration’s interpretation, citizenship should only apply to children whose parents demonstrate “primary allegiance” to America, meaning citizens and permanent residents. This allegiance would be proven through “lawful domicile,” which administration attorneys describe as “lawful, permanent residence within a nation, with intent to remain.”

The government has claimed that providing citizenship to nearly everyone born within U.S. boundaries encourages illegal border crossings and promotes “birth tourism,” where foreign nationals specifically travel to America to deliver babies and obtain citizenship for them.

Should the Supreme Court side with the administration’s position, experts estimate the ruling could impact the legal standing of approximately 250,000 infants born annually, while forcing millions of additional families to document their newborns’ citizenship eligibility.

The 14th Amendment became part of the Constitution in 1868 following the Civil War that abolished slavery from 1861-1865, specifically overturning an infamous 1857 Supreme Court ruling that declared people of African heritage could never become American citizens.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in Concord, New Hampshire, granted class-action status to the lawsuit challenging Trump’s directive last July, enabling a nationwide block of the policy.

Those opposing the order point to an 1898 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which they say definitively established that the 14th Amendment provides citizenship through birth on American territory, including for children of foreign parents.

The administration maintains that the 1898 ruling actually supports Trump’s position, arguing that the court’s decision noted Wong Kim Ark’s parents maintained permanent residence and domicile in the United States when he was born.

A final decision from the Supreme Court is anticipated by late June.

The court previously handed Trump a partial win on birthright citizenship issues by limiting federal judges’ authority to impose nationwide restrictions on presidential policies. However, that earlier ruling did not address whether Trump’s directive violates the Constitution.

The court’s current 6-3 conservative majority has generally supported Trump’s immigration initiatives since his return to office. It has allowed expanded deportation operations to proceed temporarily while legal challenges continue, including ending humanitarian protections for migrants and permitting deportations to nations where individuals have no connections.

A recent executive directive issued by President Trump is designed to establish nationwide databases of qualified voters and direct the United States Postal Service to distribute mail-in ballots exclusively to those on approved voter rolls. Legal experts predict the order will immediately face courtroom opposition.

The presidential directive represents a significant federal intervention in voting procedures, which traditionally fall under state jurisdiction. Constitutional law scholars anticipate swift legal challenges to the order’s implementation and authority.

A federal court has determined that an executive order issued during the Trump administration violated the First Amendment rights of public broadcasters NPR and PBS by targeting their funding.

The judicial decision addresses constitutional concerns about government interference with public media organizations and their editorial independence.

The ruling represents a significant legal victory for the public broadcasting networks, which argued that the administration’s actions constituted an unconstitutional attempt to suppress their journalistic activities through financial pressure.

A federal judge issued a ruling on Tuesday ordering an immediate halt to ongoing construction work on President Trump’s White House ballroom project.

The court decision mandates that all building activities on the presidential ballroom facility cease operations until proper Congressional authorization is obtained for the project’s completion.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A mother who spent nearly three decades building a life in the United States has been reunited with her daughter following a federal judge’s order to reverse her deportation to Mexico.

Maria de Jesús Estrada Juárez, a 42-year-old Mexican national, had been protected from removal under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which shields individuals brought to America as minors from deportation if they maintain clean records.

Her protection ended abruptly on February 18 when she attended a scheduled immigration appointment and was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. She was removed from the country within 24 hours.

“I didn’t get to say goodbye,” Estrada Juárez told reporters during a Tuesday press conference in Sacramento. “It all happened so fast. This has been one of the most painful experiences of my life.”

Standing beside her daughter and becoming emotional while recounting her ordeal, the mother described the sudden separation that tore their family apart.

“It’s hard to describe what it feels like to lose your mother so suddenly, especially when you believed she was safe,” explained 22-year-old Damaris Bello, Estrada Juárez’s daughter. “It was like grieving someone who was still alive.”

The deportation represents part of a broader pattern under the current Trump administration, which has detained multiple DACA recipients as part of its immigration enforcement strategy.

Immigration rights advocates point to Estrada Juárez’s case as evidence that Dreamers need stronger, more permanent legal protections.

According to Talia Inlender from UCLA School of Law’s Center for Immigration Law and Policy, judicial orders mandating someone’s return after deportation are uncommon occurrences.

“But, perhaps unsurprisingly, it feels like this is happening with more frequency under the current administration which is prioritizing speed and quotas, rather than fairness and process, in facilitating removals,” Inlender stated.

Government officials justified the deportation by citing a 1998 removal order issued when Estrada Juárez was still a teenager, shortly after her arrival in America. Though she was sent to Mexico at that time, she returned weeks later and received DACA status in 2013. Authorities reactivated the decades-old order following her February arrest.

During her separation, Estrada Juárez stayed with family members in Mexico while worrying constantly about her daughter.

“You can’t enjoy life when the most important part of your life is not there,” she reflected.

U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins, a Biden appointee, issued emergency relief on March 23, requiring federal authorities to bring Estrada Juárez back within one week. The judge determined her removal constituted a “flagrant violation” of DACA protections and violated constitutional due process guarantees.

The Department of Homeland Security stands by its actions in the case.

“ICE follows all court orders,” a department representative stated. “This is yet another ruling from a Biden-appointed activist judge.”

Estrada Juárez’s legal team maintains she had no knowledge of the 1998 order, which they argue was never properly finalized.

“DACA gives you a vested right to not be deported once it’s granted,” said Stacy Tolchin, a Pasadena-based immigration lawyer. “I really don’t understand what they’re doing.”

Bello, who welcomed her mother home Monday evening, says the family is working to recover from the traumatic experience while hoping others won’t face similar ordeals.

“Having her back home means everything to me,” she shared. “It means we can begin to heal, to rebuild and to move forward together as a family.”

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Despite controlling California politics for decades, Democratic Party officials are facing an unprecedented challenge as their gubernatorial primary spirals into chaos just weeks before mail-in ballots arrive.

With less than a month until voting begins, party leadership is publicly expressing anxiety about losing their first statewide race in twenty years. The crowded candidate field has descended into arguments over debate participation, identity issues, and ballot procedures while everyday Californians grapple with rising fuel and food costs.

“Squabbles about debates or other inside baseball politics are likely under the radar for most voters and seem almost absurd, given what’s facing us,” Kim Nalder, director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at California State University, Sacramento, said in an email.

All candidates acknowledge that many voters haven’t decided who should lead America’s most populated state, which alone ranks as the globe’s fourth-biggest economy. More than 50 names appear on the ballot, featuring eight prominent Democrats and two Republican frontrunners.

This marks the first time in decades that the gubernatorial election feels uncertain rather than predetermined — previous governors Jerry Brown and departing Gavin Newsom won their races easily. The question facing Democrats is how to reclaim their political dominance in a state where they control all statewide positions, command the legislature, and outnumber Republican voters nearly two-to-one.

“I have no idea and anybody who tells you they do, they don’t know either,” said veteran Democratic consultant Dan Newman, who is not involved in the race.

Democratic concerns about the June 2 primary center on California’s unpredictable “top two” system that places all candidates on a single ballot, advancing only the highest two vote-getters to November regardless of party affiliation. Party officials worry their 24 listed candidates will split Democratic support into tiny portions, potentially allowing the two Republican leaders — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, both Trump allies — to claim the top spots.

Though affordability concerns dominate national discussions, the governor’s race has shifted toward bitter personal confrontations and disputes that have created a disorganized atmosphere. A scheduled televised debate was scrapped following controversy over selection standards that qualified six white candidates while excluding Black, Latino and Asian contenders.

The University of Southern California, the planned debate host, stated the controversy “created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters.” The cancellation followed discrimination allegations from excluded candidates of color.

The debate cancellation occurred after state Democratic Chair Rusty Hicks urged struggling candidates to withdraw from the contest. Additionally, Rep. Eric Swalwell, among the Democratic frontrunners, claimed Trump was attempting to interfere after reports that administration officials directed FBI agents to collect materials from a ten-year-old investigation into the congressman’s connections to an alleged Chinese operative. No criminal charges resulted from that investigation.

This week, Bianco announced he suspended an investigation into election fraud claims after confiscating over 500,000 2025 election ballots, citing increasing legal pressure from state officials and voting rights organizations.

Across the nation, Democrats have celebrated wins in multiple contests — including on Trump’s home territory — viewing them as positive indicators for this year’s midterm elections when Congressional control hangs in the balance. California Democratic leaders fear lacking a candidate in November’s general election could reduce voter participation in crucial U.S. House competitions.

This situation could “imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House,” Hicks, the state Democratic chair, has warned.

The campaign to replace Newsom unfolds with Trump serving as the constant target for Democratic hopefuls — California is considered the epicenter of anti-Trump resistance. Meanwhile, the state struggles with persistent homelessness issues, routine million-dollar housing costs, and anticipated budget deficits, while citizens face some of America’s steepest gas prices, taxes, and utility costs.

February polling by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California revealed the field had separated into two tiers, with Bianco, Hilton, and three Democrats — Swalwell, former Rep. Katie Porter, and billionaire environmental advocate Tom Steyer — running competitively, while remaining candidates lagged behind.

The unpredictable contest has evoked memories of the surprising 1998 outcome — the previous open gubernatorial race — when longshot Democrat Gray Davis emerged ahead of two prominent Democrats who continuously attacked one another in the primary, with Davis ultimately winning in November.

Campaign dynamics have transformed in today’s attention-driven environment, where candidates must compete against digital platforms and online content creators to reach distracted voters.

“Normally people would paying attention,” Newman said. “The whole campaign has been in slow motion.”

WASHINGTON — During a recent Cabinet briefing, President Donald Trump requested updates on the Iran conflict from two of his top officials who are widely viewed as leading contenders for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered a forceful endorsement of the military action, describing it as “a favor” to both America and the global community. His hawkish stance contrasted sharply with Vice President JD Vance’s more measured response.

Vance, who has historically advocated for limiting American military involvement abroad, offered a restrained assessment. He noted that America now possesses “options” that weren’t available previously and emphasized preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities before shifting the conversation to Easter greetings for deployed service members.

This Cabinet room moment captured the fundamental differences between two politicians who must navigate their current administrative duties while positioning themselves for future campaigns. Republican presidential hopefuls are already beginning quiet outreach efforts in crucial early primary states like New Hampshire.

Curt Mills, who leads “The American Conservative” magazine and opposes the Iran conflict, observed the stark contrast in their approaches. “It’s very obvious from the way that Rubio talks about Iran and the way that Vance talks about Iran that they are of different casts of mind,” Mills explained. He noted that Vance appeared to be “literally trying to talk about anything else other than the war” when he pivoted to Easter discussions.

Neither Vance’s office nor the State Department provided responses to requests for comment, though officials referenced previous remarks where Rubio expressed hope that Vance would seek the presidency while not ruling out his own candidacy.

The political implications for both men remain uncertain as the 2028 race approaches. Rubio’s strong war support could become problematic depending on how the conflict evolves, while Vance risks appearing disloyal if he distances himself too far from Trump’s policies.

Vance, an Iraq War veteran, maintains that Iran must not obtain nuclear weapons while continuing to express skepticism about foreign interventions. Trump has acknowledged their philosophical differences, telling reporters that Vance was “philosophically a little bit different than me” when the Iran operation began.

“I think he was maybe less enthusiastic about going, but he was quite enthusiastic,” Trump stated.

When reporters have pressed Vance about his Iran views during public appearances, he has deflected questions. During a March 13 North Carolina visit, he twice avoided direct answers about potential concerns, stating it was crucial that Trump could consult advisers “without his team then running their mouths to the American media.”

Days later at the White House, Vance accused a reporter of “trying to drive a wedge between members of the administration, between me and the president” when asked about his position.

Rubio’s support for aggressive foreign policy predates his diplomatic role. Early in the Iran conflict, he called Trump’s decision “a wise decision,” insisted there “absolutely was an imminent threat” from Iran, and declared the operation “needed to happen.”

Recent polling from The Associated Press-NORC Center reveals Republican divisions on Iran policy, with roughly half saying military action has been appropriate. About 20% believe it hasn’t gone far enough, while approximately 25% think it’s excessive.

At Vance’s North Carolina event, 62-year-old Alice Swanson expressed interest in seeing both men run together in 2028 but favored the vice president. “I think he fully believes and supports exactly what his convictions are,” Swanson said, while acknowledging Vance’s quieter stance since the war began. “I can see both sides,” she added while supporting Trump’s decisions.

Tracy Brill, also 62 and from Rocky Mount, praised Rubio but declared, “I love JD Vance.” She defended politicians changing positions, noting “They’ve all changed their positions at one point or another.”

However, at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, 72-year-old retired military contractor Joe Ropar from McKinney, Texas, said Rubio’s unwavering Iran support influenced his 2028 preference. “I’m not looking at JD Vance for president, and it’s for stuff like that,” Ropar explained. “I don’t 100% trust him.”

Benjamin Williams, a 25-year-old marketing specialist from Austin working with Young Americans for Liberty, believes both Trump and Vance are “tied to this war” and is considering other potential candidates.

Former New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu anticipates roughly six prominent Republicans will enter the 2028 contest. Both Sununu and former RNC Committeewoman Juliana Bergeron confirmed that multiple prospective candidates have contacted them recently about New Hampshire’s political landscape, though they declined to identify specific individuals.

Republican strategist Jim Merrill, who advised Rubio’s 2016 New Hampshire campaign, predicts Iran will become a major 2028 issue similar to how Iraq affected Democratic primaries in 2004 and 2008. “If for some reason things don’t go as anticipated, there will be contrasts drawn,” he said.

Despite their differences, Sununu questions whether Iran policy will significantly distinguish Vance and Rubio given their shared administration roles. He believes both will claim credit for success or share blame for failure. “They’re tied together with the success or failure of Iran. It doesn’t really separate one versus the other, at least I don’t think that’s how the electorate will see it,” Sununu concluded.

WASHINGTON — The celebrity gossip website TMZ, famous for stalking Hollywood stars, has shifted its focus to hunting down members of Congress who are vacationing while the nation faces its longest partial government shutdown in history.

The tabloid outlet has posted viral videos and photographs capturing legislators at airports, in Las Vegas, and even at Disney World, generating millions of views and sparking widespread public anger. As travel delays continue and federal employees work without paychecks, demands are intensifying for Congress members to end their scheduled break early.

President Donald Trump has joined the chorus calling for lawmakers’ return to Washington, even suggesting he might use seldom-invoked presidential authority to force Congress back into session.

However, it remains unclear what bringing Congress back would achieve, given that the 45-day partial shutdown has reached an unprecedented deadlock. While the Senate crafted a bipartisan funding agreement last week, House Speaker Mike Johnson turned it down, leading House Republicans to approve their own alternative before departing for recess.

“I’m not sure that we’d come,” Democratic Sen. Chris Coons stated Monday regarding the possibility of being summoned back. “And I’m not sure that there would be any difference from what’s happened so far.”

When legislators left Washington last week, TMZ issued a public appeal for vacation photos.

“TMZ is on the hunt for photos of politicians on vacay as TSA officers suffer!” the website announced on social media.

The attention from TMZ — typically focused on unflattering celebrity footage rather than federal policy complexities — demonstrates how modern politics increasingly relies on viral content and grassroots anger.

The resulting videos showed senators navigating airports while trying to avoid cameras, accompanied by attention-grabbing headlines. These clips accumulated millions of views across social platforms.

TMZ expanded its coverage to include vacation photographs, notably viral images of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham at Disney World with captions reading: “Lindsey Graham lives it up at Disney World during the partial government shutdown!”

Graham explained he had traveled to Florida for meetings with Trump administration representatives and stopped at Disney World with a companion. He also placed blame on Democrats for the shutdown.

Another popular post featured Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia in Las Vegas.

“Actually I don’t mind what TMZ is doing here,” Garcia responded online, noting he was visiting his father. “Like I said a few days ago, Speaker Mike Johnson should have never sent us all home.”

TMZ executive producer Harvey Levin said the initiative stemmed from anger after interviewing a TSA employee struggling financially due to missed paychecks during the shutdown.

“It outraged us so much we wanted to use our platforms to show how Congress — Dems AND Republicans — have betrayed us,” Levin stated.

He indicated the coverage would continue indefinitely.

“Several months ago we decided to amp up our presence and our voice,” Levin explained. “We now have a producer and a photog circulating in the Capitol, showing the intersection between politics and pop culture.”

The online backlash is creating additional pressure points. Trump has demanded Congress return to work. He spoke with Senate Majority Leader John Thune on Sunday and Monday, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said he has “repeatedly” urged leadership to cancel the recess.

“He’ll host a big Easter dinner here at the White House if Congress will come back,” she offered.

Republican leadership has not yielded to the pressure so far, creating questions about how forcefully Trump will act — and whether he would compromise with Democrats to resolve the shutdown.

Labor unions are amplifying the pressure.

“To leave Washington while tens of thousands of workers are going without pay shows a clear lack of respect for the essential employees tasked with keeping our nation safe,” stated Hydrick Thomas, president of the American Federation of Government Employees TSA Council 100.

While vacation photographs have generated outrage, congressional recesses also allow lawmakers to engage with constituents in their home districts. Some conduct town hall meetings. Others participate in overseas delegations, including trips to Taiwan.

Even if Congress reconvenes in Washington, no simple solution exists for the funding standoff.

Senators already spent weeks attempting to reach agreement on Democratic demands that any Department of Homeland Security funding include limitations on federal immigration enforcement activities. Through multiple failed votes, Democrats demonstrated their unwillingness to compromise.

As the partial shutdown became the longest in American history, the Senate attempted a final compromise to fund most DHS operations while excluding money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol.

Johnson rejected that agreement in the House, instead advancing a bill to extend DHS funding along party lines. The collapse of bipartisan negotiations has damaged the atmosphere for future talks and increased finger-pointing.

“There’s no point in calling us back because that was the result of a conscious choice by the Republican majority,” said Coons, a Delaware Democrat.

Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, told Fox News on Tuesday that the House could return “on a moment’s notice,” but “the Senate has to do their job and help us on this heavy lift.”

Thune, a South Dakota Republican, has stated clearly that he sees no path for DHS funding legislation to pass the Senate given its 60-vote requirement for advancing bills, known as the filibuster.

Nevertheless, Thune faces renewed pressure to overcome the funding deadlock — including calls from Trump and some conservatives to eliminate the filibuster.

That approach appears unlikely to succeed because several Republican senators have indicated they will not vote to alter Senate rules. Still, Trump told reporters Sunday night that, “They should terminate the filibuster and they should vote.”

Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, expressed agreement. He posted on social media that he believes one of the Senate’s only options is to “nuke the filibuster and pass everything.”

“Inaction is unacceptable,” he added.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court examined one of this term’s most significant cases Wednesday as justices considered President Donald Trump’s executive order challenging birthright citizenship. The order declares that children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary residents would not automatically receive American citizenship.

During Wednesday’s proceedings, the justices reviewed Trump’s challenge to a New Hampshire federal court decision that invalidated the citizenship restrictions. Multiple courts across the nation have issued similar blocks, preventing the order from being implemented anywhere in the country.

The court is anticipated to deliver a final decision by early summer.

Trump made history by becoming the first sitting president to personally attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court.

This case represents another examination of Trump’s use of executive authority that challenges established legal precedent. The court has generally supported the president’s positions, though some significant exceptions have prompted Trump to issue harsh personal attacks against the justices.

Trump signed the birthright citizenship directive on his first day back in office as part of his administration’s comprehensive immigration enforcement strategy.

This marks the first Trump immigration policy to reach the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling. The justices previously rejected global tariffs that Trump had implemented using emergency powers legislation in an unprecedented manner.

Trump expressed intense anger over the late February tariffs ruling, stating he felt embarrassed by the justices who opposed him and labeling them unpatriotic.

On Sunday, he launched a preemptive attack against the court through his Truth Social platform. “Birthright Citizenship is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, and hundreds of thousands more, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens of the United States of America. It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES!,” the president posted. “Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!”

Trump’s directive would overturn the established interpretation that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, and federal statutes since 1940 grant citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. territory, with limited exceptions for children of foreign diplomats and those born to foreign occupying forces.

The 14th Amendment was designed to guarantee citizenship for Black Americans, including formerly enslaved people, though the Citizenship Clause uses broader language. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” the amendment states.

Through multiple rulings, federal courts have invalidated the executive order as unconstitutional and illegal under federal law. These decisions have referenced the Supreme Court’s 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, which determined that a child born in America to Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen.

The Trump administration contends that the prevailing understanding of citizenship is incorrect, claiming that children of non-citizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and thus ineligible for citizenship.

The court should use this opportunity to correct “long-enduring misconceptions about the Constitution’s meaning,” wrote Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

No court has endorsed this interpretation, and attorneys representing pregnant women whose children would face impact from the order urged the Supreme Court not to become the first to accept it.

“We have the president of the United States trying to radically reinterpret the definition of American citizenship,” stated Cecillia Wang, the American Civil Liberties Union legal director who will argue against Sauer before the Supreme Court.

Research conducted by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute indicates that more than 250,000 babies born annually in the United States would face consequences under the executive order.

Although Trump’s public statements and policies have primarily targeted undocumented immigration, the birthright restrictions would also impact individuals legally present in the United States, including international students and green card applicants seeking permanent residency.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump will make history Wednesday by becoming the first sitting commander-in-chief to observe oral arguments at the Supreme Court, where justices will consider his controversial birthright citizenship executive order.

According to the White House’s official schedule, Trump will visit the high court as justices review his challenge to a lower court decision that blocked his citizenship restrictions.

Trump issued the executive order on his first day back in office, stating that babies born to undocumented immigrants or temporary residents would no longer automatically receive American citizenship. This directive contradicts decades of established interpretation of the 14th Amendment and federal statutes dating to 1940, which grant citizenship to virtually all individuals born within U.S. borders.

This isn’t Trump’s initial consideration of attending Supreme Court proceedings. During his previous term, he expressed strong interest in observing arguments about his tariff policies but ultimately chose not to attend, citing concerns about creating a disruption.

Speaking with reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday, Trump confirmed his Wednesday plans with greater certainty.

“I’m going,” Trump stated when asked about the birthright citizenship arguments. When pressed to confirm his personal attendance, he responded, “I think so, I do believe.”

Trump previously visited the Supreme Court during his first presidency for Justice Neil Gorsuch’s ceremonial installation. The current court includes three Trump appointees: Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

While other former presidents have interacted with the court, none appear to have done so while serving in office. Richard Nixon presented arguments as a private attorney between his vice presidency and presidency, while William Howard Taft became chief justice following his presidential term.

When asked which justices he would focus on most intently, Trump offered a lengthy assessment of what he characterized as a politically divided court, split between Republican and Democratic appointees.

“I love a few of them,” he remarked. “I don’t like some others.”

The citizenship limitations represent one component of Trump’s comprehensive immigration enforcement strategy, though no jurisdiction has implemented them due to multiple court injunctions.

The Supreme Court is anticipated to deliver a final decision by early summer.

WASHINGTON — Federal immigration officials have temporarily halted the acquisition of additional detention facilities while conducting a comprehensive examination of agreements made during Kristi Noem’s leadership of the Department of Homeland Security, a senior official revealed.

The suspension follows the recent appointment of Markwayne Mullin as the new Homeland Security Secretary, who assumed control of an agency that faced significant criticism during Noem’s time in charge while remaining essential to President Trump’s immigration enforcement priorities.

The unnamed official, who requested anonymity due to lack of authorization to discuss the matter publicly, indicated that previously completed warehouse acquisitions are also under review. NBC News initially broke the story about the purchasing freeze.

When questioned about the reported suspension, Homeland Security responded with a written statement saying that “as with any transition, we are reviewing agency policies and proposals.”

The agency highlighted Mullin’s previous statements during Senate confirmation proceedings, where he expressed his desire to “work with community leaders” and “be good partners.”

Mullin has taken over management of a massive $38.3 billion initiative designed to expand detention capacity to 92,000 beds through the purchase of eight major detention complexes, each capable of holding between 7,000 and 10,000 individuals, plus 16 smaller regional processing facilities.

The ambitious expansion strategy originated during Noem’s administration but quickly encountered fierce resistance from residents and local officials nationwide who opposed having large-scale Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in their communities.

Community opposition stemmed from both ethical concerns about ICE facilities in residential areas and practical worries about potential strain on municipal infrastructure, including water and sewage systems.

Federal authorities have completed purchases of 11 warehouse properties across Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah, spending a total of $1.074 billion on the acquisitions.

However, legal challenges have been filed in three states, and at least one facility has seen its planned capacity reduced. A warehouse in Surprise, Arizona, near Phoenix, was originally designed to accommodate 1,500 individuals but will now be limited to 542 occupied beds, according to Mayor Kevin Sarter’s announcement during a Monday press conference.

Local officials, including mayors, county leaders, governors and congressional representatives, frequently discovered ICE’s plans only after properties had already been purchased or leased, creating surprise and anger even in regions that have supported Trump’s policies.

The warehouse initiative encountered obstacles from its inception, with eight potential deals falling through in locations such as Kansas City, Missouri, when property owners chose not to proceed with sales.

During his confirmation process, when questioned about the communication failures, Mullin admitted there had been problems.

“We’ve got to protect the homeland and we’re going to do that,” Mullin stated. “But obviously we want to work with community leaders.”

Mullin, who managed and grew his family’s plumbing company before serving Oklahoma in both the House and Senate, emphasized his construction experience by saying “one thing I do know is construction.”

He acknowledged that most local governments lack sufficient infrastructure capacity for waste and water management.

“So, it’s important that we’re talking to the communities and if we’re having additional needs, we can work with the cities,” he explained during his confirmation hearing earlier this month.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama’s Governor Kay Ivey is receiving hospital care following a medical procedure to drain fluid that had accumulated around her lung, according to her office.

The 81-year-old Republican leader is being observed at Baptist Medical Center South in Montgomery for several days as a precautionary measure, announced spokeswoman Gina Maiola in a statement.

Ivey sought medical attention after experiencing discomfort on her left side and recent episodes of breathing difficulties, which led doctors to discover the fluid buildup.

“While it was not emergent, Governor Ivey wanted to get the procedure done as soon as possible so she can quickly get back to 100% to wrap up the 2026 Regular Session,” Maiola stated. Alabama’s legislative session is nearing its conclusion.

Officials have not disclosed the expected duration of the governor’s hospital stay or recovery period.

“We are in touch with Governor Ivey, and she says she is determined to make a very speedy and full recovery,” Maiola reported.

In 2019, Ivey revealed she was receiving radiation therapy for lung cancer, which she characterized as a small, contained lesion. Her office reported in 2020 that medical scans showed the treatment had been effective and she was cancer-free.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court panel has temporarily blocked a judge’s directive requiring the Trump administration to restore hundreds of Voice of America workers to their positions from paid administrative leave, according to a Tuesday ruling.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel granted a stay while the government challenges the lower court’s March 17 decision. Over 1,000 Voice of America staff members will continue on administrative leave as the appeals process unfolds, which may extend for several months.

Federal District Judge Royce Lamberth had directed President Donald Trump’s administration to reinstate the government-funded Voice of America’s full operations after they were essentially halted a year prior. Lamberth received his appointment from Republican President Ronald Reagan.

The appeal will be heard by Circuit Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Robert Wilkins and Gregory Katsas.

Henderson received her nomination from Republican President George H.W. Bush, while Wilkins was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama. Katsas was nominated by Trump, a Republican.

The Voice of America has delivered news programming to nations worldwide since its establishment during World War II. Prior to Trump’s executive directive, the service operated in 49 languages and reached 362 million people globally.

Since Trump’s executive order to cease operations, Voice of America has functioned with only essential personnel.

Judge Lamberth has also determined that Kari Lake, Trump’s selection to head Voice of America, lacked proper legal authorization for her actions at the organization.

The Trump administration unveiled plans Tuesday to relocate the U.S. Forest Service’s main headquarters from Washington D.C. to Salt Lake City, marking a significant reorganization that will close research operations in 31 states and shift resources westward.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins indicated the relocation should wrap up by summer 2027, explaining the change will position agency leadership nearer to the lands under their management and the communities that rely on them.

“Effective stewardship and active management are achieved on the ground, where forests and communities are found — not just behind a desk in the capital,” Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said.

The western states contain nearly 90% of National Forest System territory, though Utah ranks just 11th nationally for forest coverage with approximately 14,300 square miles.

This mirrors Trump’s previous term when he relocated the Bureau of Land Management to Colorado for similar reasons, wanting senior officials positioned closer to the public lands under their oversight. However, the Biden administration later reversed that decision, returning BLM headquarters to the nation’s capital after just two years.

As part of Trump’s broader effort to streamline federal operations and reduce workforce size, the Agriculture Department has been relocating thousands of employees from Washington and eliminating management layers over the past year.

The Utah move will affect approximately 260 Forest Service positions currently based in Washington, with 130 employees remaining in the capital, according to agency officials.

Deputy Agriculture Secretary Stephen Vaden highlighted Salt Lake City’s appeal, citing its affordable living costs, international airport access, and the state’s “family-focused way of life.” The city represents a Democratic stronghold within a Republican state influenced by values from the locally-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Republican Utah Governor Spencer Cox praised Tuesday’s announcement as “a big win for Utah and the West,” while environmental organizations expressed concern about potential agency weakening.

Taylor McKinnon from the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity characterized the relocation as “a costly bureaucratic reshuffle” that would increase corporate and state influence over logging, mining, and drilling activities on public lands.

“National forests belong to all Americans,” said McKinnon, the environmental group’s Southwest director. “Our nation’s capital is where federal policy is made and where the Forest Service headquarters belongs.”

Josh Hicks, conservation campaigns director at The Wilderness Society, warned the move would reduce public forest access and endanger wildlife habitats, clean water, and air quality.

“At a time when wildfires are getting worse, and access to public lands is already under strain, the last thing we need is an unnecessary reorganization that creates chaos and confusion for the land managers, researchers and wildland firefighters who help keep our forests healthy now and for future generations,” he said.

The Wilderness Society referenced Trump’s earlier BLM relocation, noting it caused departures among experienced management staff and could similarly weaken the Forest Service.

The restructuring will eliminate numerous regional offices, transferring their functions to central hubs in New Mexico, Georgia, Colorado, Wisconsin, Montana, and California. Rather than operating multiple scattered research stations with separate leadership, the agency will consolidate its research operations at one facility in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Forest Service officials have not determined how many regional office employees will need to relocate, and a spokesperson declined to specify whether layoffs would occur during the transition.

U.S. Representative Teresa Leger Fernández, a New Mexico Democrat serving on the House Natural Resources Committee, questioned the timing given the Mountain West’s record-low snowpack, extreme temperatures, and anticipated severe fire season.

However, she expressed measured hope that the reorganization might benefit New Mexico and neighboring states if leadership and employment opportunities move closer to those areas.

Utah Representative Celeste Maloy, a Republican committee member, endorsed bringing the headquarters to her state, suggesting it could enhance wildfire response and ensure decisions reflect actual field conditions.

Sarah Fisher, the Forest Service’s deputy chief of fire and aviation management, assured listeners during a Tuesday podcast that the agency’s operational firefighting personnel would remain unchanged.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump launched military action against Iran without seeking input from international partners, but now he’s demanding global assistance to address the unplanned consequences of the conflict.

The president is displaying mounting frustration with European nations’ reluctance to back the U.S.-Israeli military campaign. He’s also downplaying how his decisions have disrupted worldwide oil supplies through the vital Strait of Hormuz, a waterway Iran has successfully blocked despite Trump’s claims that Iran has been “decimated.”

Trump began Tuesday morning with angry social media posts targeting two key American allies — France and Britain — while telling the world to “Go get your own oil!” and “start learning how to fight for yourself.”

“All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT,” Trump posted.

Shortly afterward, he targeted France, describing the nation as “very unhelpful” because it “wouldn’t let planes headed to Israel, loaded up with military supplies, fly over French territory.”

As Trump intensifies his criticism of NATO partners for avoiding the conflict and responding slowly to its aftermath, senior administration officials are echoing his sentiments. This pattern is generating doubt and worry about the alliance’s future, something Trump has previously questioned.

Though Trump’s scattered attacks on partners and allies have become routine and somewhat accepted, recent similar comments from key advisors including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicate the administration’s anti-NATO stance is strengthening — even as Trump hints at seeking a war exit sooner than expected.

Hegseth stated Tuesday that America conducted “the heavy lifting on behalf of the free world” against Iran’s threat and that nations relying on strait oil shipments should recognize that restoring maritime traffic is “not just our problem set going forward.”

“There are countries around the world who ought be prepared to step up on this critical waterway as well,” Hegseth said at a Pentagon news conference. “It’s not just the United States Navy. Last time I checked, there was supposed to be a big, bad Royal Navy that could be prepared to do things like that as well.”

During an Oval Office meeting with reporters Tuesday, Trump said safeguarding the strait would fall to other nations and projected U.S. strikes against Iran would conclude within two to three weeks.

“That’s not for us,” Trump said. “That’ll be for France. That’ll be for whoever’s using the strait.”

Financial markets responded positively to Trump’s aggressive statements, including a CBS News interview where he indicated he wasn’t ready to withdraw U.S. forces positioned near the strait but would soon. The S&P 500 jumped 2.9% in its largest increase since last spring, while the Dow industrials climbed over 2.5% as Wall Street shifted from war concerns to optimism about potential resolution.

However, the president’s attacks, especially weeks of NATO criticism, have made Europe anxious about implications for the military partnership, already strained by Trump cutting U.S. military aid to Ukraine and threatening to take Greenland from ally Denmark.

NATO members Spain and France have blocked or limited American use of their airspace or shared military installations for the conflict. These nations, alongside others, have agreed to participate in an international coalition to maintain Strait of Hormuz access after fighting ends, though their specific roles and the coalition’s overall stability remain uncertain.

France and Britain attempted to minimize Trump’s verbal attacks Tuesday, with Macron’s office expressing bewilderment: “France has not changed its position since day one.”

British Defense Secretary John Healey described America as a crucial ally despite his counterpart’s criticism and emphasized Britain’s contributions to helping Gulf states defend against Iranian strikes.

During a Qatar visit, Healey announced Britain would deploy additional missile and air defense systems to Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia while extending Typhoon fighter jet operations in Qatar.

“The U.S. is a uniquely close ally to the U.K.,” Healey said. “We do things as two nations that no other militaries or intelligence services do.”

He explained his role during the conflict was ensuring Britain protects its citizens and partners, adding that “we are.”

Although Europeans have clarified this isn’t their conflict, they have compelling reasons beyond securing the strait to prevent Iranian escalation, experts note.

Over ten years of Syrian civil war forced more than 5 million people to flee, with many seeking European asylum, creating social and political consequences across the continent.

With the Houthis, Iran’s allied militant organization in Yemen, firing their initial war missiles at Israel this weekend and threatening Red Sea disruption — a vital European trade route — European leaders have numerous incentives to use available influence encouraging Trump to end the conflict.

“I think this is a true opportunity for Europe to show the Gulf that it can be a partner,” said Yasmine Farouk, Gulf and Arabian Peninsula Project director at the International Crisis Group. “And I think they have already been showing that in the defense (weapons they’ve provided to Gulf nations), they need now to make it more into the diplomatic side in terms of offering offramps and working on a deal.”

Europe could effectively influence Trump by emphasizing the war’s economic impacts, promoting diplomacy and maritime stabilization missions connected to ceasefires, and creating “an off-ramp that flatters Trump’s vanity,” Jeremy Shapiro, U.S. programs director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in Tuesday analysis.

“Trump will claim victory no matter how this war ends,” Shapiro wrote. “Europeans should want that to happen sooner rather than later.”

A federal court in Rhode Island has blocked the Trump administration’s controversial changes to how $75 million in homeless assistance funding gets distributed, calling the policy shift unlawful.

Multiple nonprofit organizations took legal action last year, challenging the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s decision to alter requirements for the Continuum of Care Builds program. The organizations claimed HUD issued new funding guidelines primarily to advance the administration’s political agenda.

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, who was appointed by Trump himself, condemned what she called the department’s “slapdash imposition of political whims” and mandated that officials abandon the revised policy.

“Once again, this Court is faced with a case in which an executive agency has made a last-minute decision to make major, disruptive changes to grants within its purview, all for the express purpose of accomplishing the current administration’s policy objectives,” McElroy wrote in her decision, finding the new guidelines violated the Administrative Procedure Act that governs federal agency rulemaking.

HUD officials have not yet responded to requests for comment on the ruling.

Legal representatives for the challenging organizations praised the court’s decision.

“For more than three decades, the federal government has supported housing providers and communities through HUD’s programs to help people experiencing homelessness move into stable housing,” stated Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which served as co-counsel. “We are pleased that the court has stopped the Trump-Vance administration from holding life-saving funding hostage to a political agenda.”

Ann Oliva, who leads the National Alliance to End Homelessness, called the decision “a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs.”

“Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means,” Oliva stated.

The lawsuit alleged that the administration sought to overturn long-standing policies based on political considerations, including whether local jurisdictions “support sanctuary protections, harm reduction practices, or inclusive policies for transgender people.”

The Alliance and Women’s Development Corporation contended that HUD overstepped its legal authority with the modifications, describing the revised award process as “shockingly unlawful” and warning it would “irreparably injure qualified applicants for these funds and the communities they serve.”

In defending its position, HUD maintained the updated standards represented an attempt “to ensure the availability of funding to protect our Nation’s most vulnerable individuals and families from the trauma of homelessness while simultaneously promoting self-sufficiency.”

“Defendants acted reasonably and prudently because the NOFO conditions, focusing on public safety, cooperation with law enforcement and prohibitions on illegal drug use, are sufficiently related to the funding goals of self-sufficiency and reduction of trauma,” HUD attorneys argued in court documents.

A Republican senator announced plans Tuesday to introduce expanded legislation aimed at preventing Chinese automotive companies from accessing the American marketplace through any means.

Senator Bernie Moreno stated he will present the new bill next month, building upon existing restrictions that already block Chinese car manufacturers from selling passenger vehicles in the United States. The current prohibition, implemented by the Biden administration in January 2025, was established due to national security worries about vehicles potentially gathering private information from American consumers.

American automotive manufacturers and industry organizations have expressed strong support for these restrictions. Leading auto trade associations recently sent correspondence to federal officials urging continued exclusion of Chinese car companies from the domestic market, particularly as President Donald Trump prepares for a scheduled summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in May.

Moreno explained that his upcoming legislation would create more comprehensive barriers than current import restrictions. “There’s never a scenario where a Chinese automobile will enter our market, that’s hardware, that’s software, that’s partnerships,” he stated.

Speaking at an Automotive Forum event before the New York Auto Show, the senator added, “There will not be a Chinese automobile here. And what I’m hoping is that Latin America, Mexico, Canada and Europe, adopt our same standards now.”

Drawing comparisons to existing telecommunications restrictions, Moreno said, “We don’t allow Huawei to come into our telecommunications infrastructure. We’re not going to allow Chinese automakers into this market.” He used medical terminology to describe his approach: “We’re going to prevent the cancer from coming into our market, and we’re going to need the other countries to do chemotherapy.”

The Chinese Embassy in Washington has not yet provided a response to requests for comment regarding the proposed legislation.

The announcement comes as Trump prepares for his May visit to China, as both nations work to maintain the diplomatic stability that has marked their relationship since late last year, following a difficult period characterized by trade disputes and export restrictions.

However, Trump previously indicated some openness to Chinese automotive investment in American manufacturing. Speaking to the Detroit Economic Club in January, he said, “If they want to come in and build a plant and hire you and hire your friends and your neighbors, that’s great, I love that.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump issued an executive order Tuesday establishing a federal database of eligible voters across all states, a directive that legal experts anticipate will face immediate court challenges as the administration pushes for tighter voting restrictions before upcoming midterm elections.

The directive instructs the Department of Homeland Security to collaborate with the Social Security Administration in developing verified voter rolls for every state, the White House announced. Additionally, the order attempts to prohibit the U.S. Postal Service from delivering absentee ballots to individuals not appearing on each state’s authorized voter registry, though experts question whether the president possesses authority over postal operations.

The executive order also mandates that voting ballots include secure envelopes featuring unique tracking barcodes, according to the document initially disclosed by the Daily Caller.

“The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible what’s going on,” Trump stated while signing the directive, reiterating his unsubstantiated claims regarding mail-in ballot fraud. “I think this will help a lot with elections.”

Legal challenges are anticipated following Tuesday’s action as the president continues efforts to influence state-administered elections.

Trump’s initial election-related executive order from March 2025 attempted comprehensive reforms to election procedures nationwide, including mandating documentary citizenship proof for federal voter registration and requiring mailed ballots to arrive at election offices by Election Day. Courts have largely halted these provisions following lawsuits from voting advocacy organizations and Democratic state attorneys general, who contend the measures represent unconstitutional federal overreach that would prevent many citizens from voting.

During a February podcast interview with a conservative host, Trump expressed his desire to “take over” elections in Democratic-controlled regions, citing fraud allegations that multiple audits, investigations and judicial proceedings have disproven.

David Becker, a former Justice Department attorney who directs the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said Tuesday’s voting directive demonstrates Trump hasn’t absorbed lessons from his earlier unsuccessful attempts to control elections.

“The Constitution is very clear — the president has no power over elections in the states,” Becker explained. “This will be blocked as soon as lawyers can get to the courthouse.”

Becker noted that the U.S. Postal Service operates under a board of governors, preventing presidential control over mail delivery decisions.

“If Trump signs an unconstitutional Executive Order to take over voting, we will sue,” declared Marc Elias, a voting rights attorney and Democracy Docket founder, in a social media statement. “I don’t bluff and I usually win.”

American elections operate through a decentralized system rather than federal administration. Thousands of local jurisdictions manage voting processes, from small townships to large urban counties serving more voters than entire states. The Constitution’s Elections Clause grants Congress authority to “make or alter” election rules for federal positions but establishes no presidential power over election management.

The Trump administration has initiated what it characterizes as a comprehensive effort targeting alleged voter fraud, which has been the focus of false statements from Trump and supporters for years. The Justice Department has spent months requesting detailed voter registration records from states as part of what officials describe as election security efforts, filing lawsuits when state officials decline to provide the information.

FBI agents seized ballots in January from a Georgia county election office that has featured prominently in right-wing conspiracy theories surrounding Trump’s 2020 election defeat. Attorney General Pam Bondi recently appointed Daniel Bishop, the chief federal prosecutor for North Carolina’s Middle District, as a “special attorney” authorized to investigate and prosecute nationwide cases “relating to the integrity of federal elections,” according to the appointment document.

The Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE system for confirming citizenship and immigration status has faced criticism from voting rights organizations over flawed outcomes from unreliable databases and privacy issues. States can perform bulk SAVE searches using Social Security numbers, but most states don’t collect complete Social Security numbers during voter registration, the Brennan Center for Justice reports. While the Trump administration updated the system last year, legal challenges continue alleging that SAVE dependence creates citizenship verification errors affecting qualified voters.

The president frequently criticizes mail-in voting, claiming the practice involves widespread fraud while urging lawmakers to approve comprehensive election legislation restricting it. Trump’s fraud allegations lack foundation; a 2025 Brookings Institution study determined mail voting fraud occurred in just 0.000043% of total mail ballots cast, approximately four instances per 10 million mail ballots.

Trump has personally utilized mail ballots, including last week in local Florida elections. White House officials state Trump opposes universal mail-in voting rather than individual voters who require alternative voting methods for circumstances like travel or military service.

WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump indicated Tuesday that American military operations targeting Iran could conclude within a matter of weeks.

Speaking to members of the press at the White House, Trump stated, “We’ll be leaving very soon,” and elaborated that such a departure might occur within a two to three week timeframe.

The comments came as Trump addressed reporters about the ongoing military situation involving Iran.

WASHINGTON – During a Tuesday meeting with reporters, President Donald Trump announced that federal authorities will need to intervene in Los Angeles when the World Cup takes place, citing concerns about preventing criminal activity and maintaining order.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump stated: “We’re gonna have to do something when it comes World Cup time, and we’re gonna have to force ourselves upon them, which we have the right to do, because we don’t want to have any crime, we don’t want to have any problems.”

The president has previously implemented law enforcement crackdowns in multiple cities, including deploying hundreds of federal agents and thousands of military personnel to Washington, D.C.

The international soccer tournament, which ranks among the world’s most watched sporting competitions, is scheduled to take place during June and July of this year. The event will span three nations: the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

Representatives from both the Los Angeles mayor’s office and California’s governor have not yet provided responses to media inquiries about Trump’s announcement.

Former President Donald Trump issued an executive order Tuesday directing his administration to implement stricter controls over mail-in voting procedures across the United States.

The directive instructs federal agencies to compile lists of verified American citizens qualified to vote in every state. Under the new requirements, absentee ballots would only be distributed to individuals appearing on each state’s authorized mail-in voting registry.

Additionally, the order mandates that all mail-in ballots must use secure envelopes featuring distinctive tracking barcodes for monitoring purposes.

Legal experts anticipate swift court challenges to any federal attempt to modify state-controlled electoral processes.

Trump has consistently maintained his unfounded assertion that his 2020 presidential loss resulted from extensive voting irregularities. He continues advocating for stricter mail-in voting regulations before November’s midterm elections, where Republicans will work to maintain their slim congressional control.

Despite his public criticism of mail-in voting, Trump recently voted by mail in a Florida special election. When questioned about this apparent contradiction, he explained he voted absentee “because I’m president” and “I had a lot of different things” to handle.

This latest action follows Trump’s previous executive directives instructing federal departments to assist states in confirming voter citizenship status and attempting to prevent states from tallying mail ballots arriving after Election Day – moves that directly challenge traditional state authority over election administration.

The nation’s highest court is preparing to hear oral arguments in a significant constitutional challenge that could reshape American citizenship laws. The case centers on the Trump administration’s effort to strip birthright citizenship from children born on U.S. soil to parents without legal immigration status.

The legal battle, officially titled Trump v. Barbara, represents a direct challenge to the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has traditionally granted automatic citizenship to anyone born within American borders.

At the heart of this constitutional dispute are the individual plaintiffs whose personal stories have become the foundation for this landmark legal challenge. The case could potentially affect millions of American-born children whose parents lack documented immigration status.

This Supreme Court decision will likely have far-reaching implications for immigration policy and constitutional law, as justices weigh arguments about one of America’s most fundamental principles of citizenship.

Defense officials have offered varying and at times conflicting rationales for potential military action against Iran, with the messaging also differing markedly from rhetoric used in previous conflicts.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been incorporating religious language and terminology during Pentagon briefings when discussing the possibility of armed conflict with Iran, representing a notable shift in how military leadership communicates about potential warfare.

The justifications presented by government officials for engaging in hostilities with Iran have lacked consistency, with some explanations contradicting others that have been offered publicly.

New York City has lifted its ban on TikTok for government use, nearly three years after joining other municipalities nationwide in blocking the Chinese-owned platform from official devices due to security worries.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani, known for his social media presence, announced the policy change directly on TikTok Tuesday with the message: “TikTok, we’re back.”

City departments can now resume posting content on the popular video platform, provided they follow new cybersecurity protocols outlined in a Tuesday memo from municipal technology officials.

The original ban was implemented by former Mayor Eric Adams in 2023, mirroring actions taken by federal authorities and numerous states concerned that ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, might provide user information to Chinese officials.

TikTok previously dismissed such worries as baseless. New York City authorities at that time cited potential risks to municipal computer networks as justification for the restriction.

NYC Cyber Command, the agency responsible for protecting city digital infrastructure, explained in Tuesday’s memo that the policy shift aims to expand communication channels with residents.

“The Mamdani administration is committed to using every tool in our toolbox to communicate with New Yorkers,” NYC Cyber Command wrote. “At a moment when people are turning to city government for information about free services, emergency situations, upcoming events, and more, we want to open up new avenues of communication with the public and help deliver the information New Yorkers need.”

Under the new guidelines, city departments must use dedicated devices exclusively for TikTok that cannot access confidential information, email systems, or other internal networks. Additionally, agencies must create accounts using official credentials rather than personal email addresses and assign specific employees to manage the platform.

TikTok representatives did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

The 34-year-old Mamdani has built his political brand partly through engaging social media content, with his informative videos gaining widespread attention online during his campaign and tenure as mayor.

The official mayoral TikTok account, inactive since the prohibition began, now features several new posts.

Recent content includes Mamdani promoting his “rental rip-off hearings” where tenants can voice complaints about substandard housing conditions. Another video features the mayor with New York Liberty basketball player Natasha Cloud announcing a bracket-style contest allowing residents to vote on small neighborhood improvements, such as repairing damaged basketball hoops.

A federal court has determined that President Trump’s executive directive to eliminate government funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service violates constitutional protections for free speech.

The judge concluded that the presidential order represents unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under First Amendment law. The ruling specifically addresses the boundary between government funding decisions and constitutional free speech guarantees.

The court’s decision centers on the principle that government entities cannot withdraw funding based on disagreement with the editorial perspectives or content produced by media organizations.

WASHINGTON — A federal court has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s massive White House renovation project after a judge ruled Tuesday that the president likely overstepped his authority in proceeding with the $400 million ballroom construction.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a preliminary injunction stopping President Donald Trump’s ballroom project, which involved tearing down the East Wing of the White House. The ruling came after the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed suit seeking to pause the controversial renovation.

Judge Leon, appointed by former Republican President George W. Bush, determined in his decision that “the National Trust is likely to succeed on the merits because no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”

“The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” Leon wrote in his order.

The preservation organization had requested the court to stop construction until the project receives proper independent evaluations and Congressional authorization.

Trump revealed the ballroom plans during the summer months. Construction began quickly, with the East Wing demolished by the end of October to clear space for the proposed venue, which Trump stated would accommodate 999 guests. The administration claimed the massive 90,000-square-foot ballroom would be funded through private contributions, including donations from Trump personally.

The president moved forward with demolition and construction without first consulting two required federal oversight bodies — the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts. Both panels have been filled with Trump appointees and supporters.

MADISON, Wis. — A panel of three Wisconsin judges on Tuesday rejected a legal challenge from Democratic voters who wanted to force new congressional district boundaries in the key swing state before November’s elections.

The ruling may be taken to Wisconsin’s liberal-majority Supreme Court, though whether that court could act quickly enough to impact this year’s races remains uncertain. A separate redistricting lawsuit is also moving through the courts but won’t reach trial until April 2027.

These legal battles unfold as President Donald Trump pursues redistricting fights nationwide to help Republicans maintain their narrow House control after November.

The judicial panel stated in their decision they found “no basis to find the current congressional map invalid.” They explained the case needed dismissal because only Wisconsin’s Supreme Court holds authority to decide on map changes.

However, the judges emphasized they were “not endorsing the current congressional map” when throwing out the case.

“Rather, we, as circuit court judges, do not have the authority to read into a Wisconsin Supreme Court case an analysis that it does not contain,” the judges ruled.

GOP officials celebrated the outcome.

“This is a significant win for Republicans and a yet another blow to desperate Democrats who wanted to reshape the electoral landscape,” said Zach Bannon, spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “By keeping Wisconsin’s current district lines in place for 2026, Republicans are in a strong position to build on our momentum to retain and grow our House majority.”

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court directed these redistricting cases to the three-judge panel last November despite Republican opposition. This marked the initial use of this procedure under legislation Republicans passed in 2011.

The rejected lawsuit claimed existing maps unfairly harm Democrats by concentrating large numbers of Democratic voters into two districts while splitting other Democratic communities across six GOP-leaning districts.

Before Republicans redrew congressional boundaries in 2010, Democrats controlled five House seats versus three for Republicans. Currently, Republicans occupy six of Wisconsin’s eight House seats, with only two considered truly competitive races.

These congressional boundaries, derived from 2010 maps, received approval from the state Supreme Court when conservative justices held the majority. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to block these maps in March 2022.

Democrats particularly want to challenge Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden’s western Wisconsin seat, as he’s a strong Trump ally. Van Orden claimed victory in 2022 after longtime Democratic Rep. Ron Kind stepped down, then won reelection in the 3rd District during 2024.

The other Democratic target is southeastern Wisconsin’s 1st District, where Republican Rep. Bryan Steil has served since 2019. Recent map adjustments made this district more competitive while maintaining Republican advantages.

Next year’s scheduled lawsuit comes from a bipartisan group of business leaders, though that case also faces a pending dismissal motion.

Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy contends in their legal filing that the state’s congressional maps violate constitutional principles through anti-competitive gerrymandering. Their lawsuit points out that winning candidates across all eight districts have averaged victory margins near 30 percentage points since these maps took effect.

WASHINGTON — A federal court has issued a permanent injunction preventing the Trump administration from carrying out a presidential order that would have eliminated government funding for NPR and PBS.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss issued his decision Tuesday in Washington, declaring that President Trump’s executive directive to halt funding for the public broadcasting organizations violates constitutional law and cannot be enforced. In his ruling, Moss stated that First Amendment free speech protections prohibit this kind of viewpoint-based discrimination and retaliatory action.

“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” wrote Moss, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

During a press conference last year, Trump expressed his desire to eliminate funding for NPR and PBS, claiming both organizations show bias toward Democratic viewpoints.

In their legal challenge, NPR argued that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting infringed on their First Amendment rights by moving to terminate their access to congressionally allocated grant funding. The organization also contended that Trump, a Republican, sought to retaliate against them based on their news coverage.

Following congressional defunding last August, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced plans to begin shutting down operations.

AKRON, Ohio — Two former FirstEnergy Corporation executives remain in legal limbo after jurors announced Tuesday they could not agree on a verdict in their corruption trial tied to a massive $60 million bribery operation.

Former CEO Chuck Jones and former senior vice president Michael Dowling faced charges related to their alleged participation in a scheme to illegally influence politicians in exchange for a $1 billion nuclear plant bailout and other benefits.

After deliberating for more than eight days following a six-week trial, the jury informed Summit County Common Pleas Judge Susan Baker Ross they had reached an impasse. The jurors had previously sent multiple requests for clarification to the judge, who had earlier instructed them to continue their discussions when they first reported being unable to reach consensus.

Judge Ross indicated she would permit attorneys to speak with jurors if they chose and would meet with legal teams to determine whether to declare a mistrial. “Let me kind of regroup here,” she said.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, released a video statement declaring his office’s intention to pursue the case again. “The state of Ohio can and will retry these defendants. Justice needs to be done,” Yost said.

Defense attorney John McCaffrey, representing Dowling, announced plans to file “a motion for judgement of acquittal.”

The jury’s inability to decide represents an unusual setback for prosecutors, who previously obtained FirstEnergy’s acknowledgment of funding the bribery operation and secured a 20-year prison sentence for former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, who coordinated the corrupt scheme.

Householder’s operation involved installing political allies, gaining control in the legislature, enacting the nuclear bailout legislation, and then launching underhanded tactics to prevent a public referendum from overturning it.

However, the charges against Jones and Dowling presented more complex legal questions. Prosecutors accused them of felony corruption, bribery, conspiracy and aggravated theft for providing $4.3 million to someone not yet holding an influential position, though he was positioned to gain such power.

The government’s case centered on allegations that Jones and Dowling illegally paid Sam Randazzo, who was set to become chair of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, to secure legislative and regulatory advantages. Prosecutors particularly focused on his support for House Bill 6, the $1 billion rescue package for two deteriorating FirstEnergy-connected nuclear facilities at the heart of the corruption scandal.

Defense lawyers portrayed Randazzo as “a thief” and “a con man” who alone misused FirstEnergy funds. They contended the $4.3 million represented a legitimate legal settlement for consulting work Randazzo performed for the Akron-based utility company, arguing he was solely responsible for any improper use of the money. Randazzo, originally charged with Jones and Dowling, took his own life after entering a not guilty plea.

Jones’ lawyer, Carole Rendon, argued Tuesday that insufficient evidence existed to support the primary bribery charge against her client and requested a mistrial declaration.

The trial’s most prominent witness was U.S. Senator Jon Husted, formerly Ohio’s lieutenant governor, who testified about attending a crucial December 18, 2018 dinner. Present at the meeting were Husted, then-Governor-elect Mike DeWine, Jones, Dowling, and Josh Rubin, who served both as a campaign adviser to the governor and as a FirstEnergy lobbyist.

According to evidence presented in court, Rubin had counseled the executives earlier that day on strategies for influencing DeWine regarding the company’s preferred candidate to lead the PUCO, as detailed in text messages included in the criminal complaint.

Rubin warned them against telling DeWine about their planned visit to Randazzo’s home following the dinner. Later, Randazzo sent Dowling a text message listing dollar amounts for 2019 through 2024, totaling “4,333,333.” Dowling responded: “Got it, Sam. Good seeing you as well. Thanks for the hospitality. Cool condo.”

The following day, Jones also messaged Randazzo, writing: “We’re going to get this handled this year, paid in full, no discount. Don’t forget about us or Hurricane Chuck may show up on your doorstep! Of course, no guarantee he won’t show up sometime anyway.”

Randazzo replied: “Made me laugh — you guys are welcome anytime and anywhere I can open the door. Let me know how you want me to structure the invoices. Thanks.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump made their way to the Kennedy Center on Tuesday evening for the opening night performance of the musical ‘Chicago,’ marking what may be among their final opportunities to attend a show before the venue shuts down for renovations this July.

This marks the couple’s first joint appearance at the Kennedy Center since they attended the January premiere of the documentary ‘Melania.’ The president previously drew mixed reactions from audiences when he attended last summer’s opening of ‘Les Misérables,’ where he faced both applause and jeers from attendees.

The musical ‘Chicago,’ which takes place during the 1920s era, serves as a sharp commentary on how entertainment industries and news media transform lawbreakers into household names.

Performances of ‘Chicago’ are scheduled to continue at the Kennedy Center Opera House until April 5. The venue has also planned to present comedian Bill Maher with the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor on June 28, another event the president might choose to attend.

Following his return to the presidency in January 2025, the Republican leader has exercised significant control over the performing arts center, removing its former management and installing his own chosen board of trustees, who subsequently appointed him as chairman.

The new board implemented a name change for the Kennedy Center and authorized the two-year shutdown, decisions that came after numerous high-profile artists, musicians and performance groups canceled their appearances in protest of Trump’s takeover of the historic venue. Both the renaming and the planned closure have sparked legal challenges that remain unresolved.

While presidents typically manage multiple responsibilities simultaneously, Trump’s decision to attend Tuesday’s musical premiere follows White House explanations that conflicts in Iran and other pressing national issues prevented him from traveling to the Conservative Political Action Conference held in the Dallas suburbs over the weekend.

Trump has been a regular presence at previous CPAC events, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that he continues to ‘love’ the gathering and maintains ‘a very good relationship with the great people who run it.’

‘It was just simply for scheduling purposes this year, with it being in Texas, it was best for the president’s schedule and what he has on his plate right now not to go,’ she explained during Monday’s press briefing with reporters.

Rather than attending CPAC, Trump remained at his Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida, over the weekend, where he visited his golf course on both Saturday and Sunday.

America’s highest court is examining whether President Donald Trump has the authority to strip citizenship rights from children whose parents lack legal immigration status or hold temporary permits when born on U.S. soil.

Wednesday’s legal challenge centers on an executive directive Trump issued during his second term’s opening day, targeting the elimination of automatic citizenship—a constitutional protection extending to virtually all individuals born within American borders.

Although this citizenship guarantee has remained a cornerstone of American law for more than 150 years, such policies are uncommon globally.

This automatic citizenship concept operates under the legal doctrine known as jus soli, meaning “right of soil.”

America established this constitutional right following the Civil War, primarily to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved individuals.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” according to the 14th Amendment.

The late 19th century saw courts extend this citizenship right to immigrant children.

The landmark case involved Wong Kim Ark, an American-born individual with Chinese immigrant parents, who filed suit after being barred from reentering the United States following international travel. The nation’s top court ultimately determined that the constitutional amendment grants citizenship to all U.S.-born individuals, regardless of their parents’ immigration standing.

Currently, only limited exceptions exist to this birthright rule, including children born to diplomatic personnel from foreign nations.

Approximately three dozen nations worldwide, predominantly located throughout the Americas, provide automatic citizenship to children born within their borders.

The majority of global nations operate under jus sanguinis, or “right of blood,” where children inherit citizenship through their parents’ nationality rather than their birthplace.

All 27 European Union member nations, for instance, do not provide automatic, unrestricted citizenship to children born within their territories to non-citizen parents. Similar policies exist throughout most of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

Certain nations employ mixed approaches, considering factors like parentage, residency duration, and ethnic background when determining childhood citizenship.

Australia maintained birthright citizenship until 1986, when new rules required at least one parent to hold Australian citizenship or permanent residency for children to gain automatic citizenship.

Germany moved in the opposite direction, updating its citizenship regulations in 2024.

Previously, German citizenship by birth required German parentage. Under 2024 changes, children born in Germany to foreign parents automatically receive German citizenship when one parent has maintained legal residence for over five years with unlimited residency rights.

German officials liberalized these laws because “studies have shown that the education prospects of children and teenagers with a migration background are better, the sooner they were granted German citizenship,” according to government statements.

American birthright citizenship opponents focus on specific constitutional language: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

This wording, they contend, allows the United States to refuse citizenship to children born to women without legal immigration status.

Multiple judges have rejected the administration’s position, with various courts repeatedly suspending the executive order.

Wednesday’s case originated from New Hampshire, where a federal district judge determined the directive “likely violates” both constitutional and federal legal standards.

WASHINGTON — Three former FBI agents filed a class action lawsuit Tuesday seeking to regain their positions, claiming they were unlawfully terminated for participating in the investigation of Donald Trump’s attempts to reverse his 2020 election loss.

The federal court filing represents another legal challenge to FBI Director Kash Patel’s personnel overhaul, which has led to the dismissal of numerous agents over the past year due to their involvement in Trump-related investigations or perceived disloyalty to the Republican president’s policies.

While the Washington federal court lawsuit names only three agents, its request for class action designation could potentially allow dozens of agents terminated since Trump’s administration began to seek job restoration.

The dismissed agents — Michelle Ball, Jamie Garman and Blaire Toleman — lost their positions in October and November, which they characterize as part of a “retribution campaign” targeting their investigation work. According to the lawsuit, each agent served between eight and 14 years with “exemplary and unblemished” records and anticipated completing their careers with the bureau before their sudden termination without justification or opportunity to defend themselves.

“Serving the American people as FBI agents was the highest honor of our lives,” they said in a statement. “We took an oath to uphold the Constitution, followed the facts wherever they led and never compromised our integrity. Our removal from federal service — without due process and based on a false perception of political bias — is a profound injustice that raises serious concerns about political interference in federal law enforcement.”

The agents participated in an investigation that led to special counsel Jack Smith’s 2023 indictment charging Trump with illegally attempting to reverse his presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. Smith later dropped this case and a separate classified documents case following Trump’s 2024 election victory, citing Justice Department policies preventing federal prosecution of sitting presidents.

According to the lawsuit, the terminations occurred after Senate Judiciary Committee Republican Chairman Chuck Grassley released internal FBI documents regarding the election investigation, codenamed Arctic Frost. These materials revealed that Smith’s team had obtained phone records from several Republican legislators through subpoenas, angering Trump’s congressional supporters.

The legal action names Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi as defendants, alleging they orchestrated the dismissals despite being “personally embroiled” as witnesses or legal representatives in Trump’s various legal matters.

Patel received a federal grand jury subpoena and had his phone records obtained during the Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation, while Bondi served on Trump’s legal team during his first impeachment trial, which ended in acquittal.

“And now, by virtue of presidential appointment to the pinnacle of federal law enforcement, Defendants are abusing their positions to claim victories that eluded them on the merits,” the lawsuit states.

FBI and Justice Department representatives did not respond immediately to requests for comment. Patel and Bondi have maintained that the terminated agents and Smith’s team prosecutors weaponized federal law enforcement, an accusation included in termination letters but dismissed by plaintiffs as defamatory and groundless.

Attorney Dan Eisenberg, representing the agents, stated his clients faced dismissal without investigation, formal charges, or hearing opportunities.

“This lawsuit seeks to reaffirm fundamental constitutional protections for FBI employees, ensuring they can perform their duties without fear or favor. We all benefit when law enforcement officers’ only loyalty is to facts and the truth,” said Eisenberg from Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP.

The legal filing requests agent reinstatement and a court declaration confirming their rights violations. It seeks to represent a class of at least 50 agents terminated since January 20, 2025, or facing future dismissal. These agents could also recover their positions if the case succeeds and receives class action approval.

Additional dismissed employees pursuing legal action include agents photographed kneeling during 2020 racial justice protests, an agent trainee who displayed an LGBTQ+ flag at his workspace, and senior officials including the former acting FBI director terminated last summer.

Dismissals have continued, with Patel recently removing Washington field office agents involved in investigating Trump’s classified document retention. Trump maintains he had authority to keep the documents upon leaving office and claims without evidence that he declassified them.

The nation’s highest court delivered a significant ruling Tuesday, striking down Colorado’s prohibition on so-called conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ youth by an 8-1 margin. Colorado is among approximately two dozen states that have outlawed the widely discredited practice.

The court’s overwhelming majority supported Christian counselor Kaley Chiles, who challenged the state’s restrictions on talk therapy as a violation of First Amendment protections. The justices determined the legislation presents free speech issues and returned the case to lower courts to evaluate whether it can meet a stringent legal test that most laws fail to satisfy.

This decision continues a pattern of recent Supreme Court cases where justices have supported religious discrimination claims while showing skepticism toward LGBTQ rights protections.

Chiles, backed by President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, maintained that the state law improperly prevents her from providing voluntary, faith-based counseling services to minors. She argues her methods differ from historical conversion therapy techniques such as shock treatment. Her legal team claimed the prohibition makes it difficult for parents to locate therapists willing to explore gender identity issues with children unless the counseling supports transitioning.

Colorado pushed back against these arguments, stating its legislation permits broad discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation while providing exemptions for religious ministries. State officials emphasized the law only prohibits therapeutic attempts to change LGBTQ individuals into heterosexuality or conventional gender roles – practices that medical experts have debunked and connected to significant psychological damage.

Colorado maintained the law doesn’t infringe on First Amendment protections because therapeutic services differ from other forms of expression, representing healthcare that falls under state regulatory authority.

The 2019 legislation includes potential penalties of fines and professional license suspension, though no enforcement actions have occurred. Legal experts anticipate this ruling will ultimately render comparable laws in other states unenforceable.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group with frequent Supreme Court appearances, represented Chiles. This same organization previously represented a Christian web designer who successfully challenged Colorado’s anti-discrimination statutes after refusing services to same-sex couples.

Vice President JD Vance will release a new memoir this summer that details his spiritual journey and adult conversion to the Catholic faith.

The book, titled “Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith,” is scheduled for publication on June 16 through Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. The same publishing house previously released Vance’s bestselling 2016 memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” which sold over a million copies and launched him into the national spotlight.

“The story of how I regained my faith, of course, only happened because I had lost it to begin with,” the 41-year-old vice president explained in a statement.

“The interesting question that hangs over this book, and over my mind, is why I ever strayed from the path. Why the Christian faith of my youth failed to properly take root,” he added.

Tuesday’s book announcement is expected to fuel rumors about Vance’s potential White House ambitions for 2028. While the Republican vice president has stated he isn’t currently concentrating on such plans, he has suggested waiting until after the 2026 midterm elections before making any campaign decisions.

Publishing books has become a common strategy for presidential candidates, offering them media attention and opportunities to refine their political messaging before officially entering races. Several potential Democratic contenders for 2028 have already published or announced upcoming books, including Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and former Vice President Kamala Harris.

According to his publisher, Vance personally authored the 304-page “Communion,” working on the project intermittently since 2019. The book will feature content about his political career. While several vice presidents from Walter Mondale to Mike Pence have published books, Vance would be among the first in recent history to do so while actively serving in office.

HarperCollins had previously told the Associated Press in 2022 that Vance had postponed a planned religious memoir. Portions of “Communion” are based on that earlier project.

Vance has described his religious transformation as moving from Christianity to atheism before ultimately embracing Catholicism. He joined the Catholic Church in 2019 and has said his newfound faith provided him with meaning that he couldn’t find through his Yale University education or career in finance.

“Hillbilly Elegy,” which chronicled Vance’s upbringing in rural America, gained widespread readership when it was first published and became even more popular following Donald Trump’s unexpected 2016 presidential win, as Democrats turned to the book to better understand Trump’s voter appeal. Director Ron Howard later turned “Hillbilly Elegy” into a 2020 film featuring Glenn Close and Amy Adams.

Though Vance initially opposed Trump, he later became a strong supporter. He won election to the U.S. Senate representing Ohio in 2022 as a Republican, and Trump selected him as his vice presidential candidate two years later. At his inauguration, Vance became the youngest person to hold the vice presidency since Richard Nixon served under President Dwight Eisenhower during the 1950s.

The book announcement comes one day after Vance’s wife, Usha Vance, revealed she has launched a podcast titled “Storytime with the Second Lady” aimed at encouraging children’s literacy.

The Vances are parents to three young children and are expecting their fourth child, a son, in late July.

WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump delivered sharp criticism Tuesday toward nations that declined to support recent U.S.-Israeli military actions against Iran, suggesting they should either purchase American petroleum or forcefully secure the Strait of Hormuz themselves.

In his statement, Trump specifically called out Britain and France for their lack of participation in what he described as a month-long conflict that has disrupted international markets, increased energy costs, and resulted in Iran blocking oil tanker passage through the strategic waterway.

“All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

“You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us.

“The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!”

Trump additionally condemned France for denying military supply aircraft bound for Israel permission to cross through French airspace during the operations.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s traditional approach to steadying financial markets through public statements and social media messaging is proving less effective as his military conflict with Iran continues to unfold.

The president has focused heavily on preventing oil price spikes, stock market crashes, and interest rate increases as the war he initiated last month drags on. Despite his efforts to project confidence, the S&P 500 has dropped over the past five weeks while global oil prices have jumped approximately 60%.

“I thought oil prices were going to go up higher than they are now,” Trump stated during an investor summit on Friday. “And I thought that we would see a bigger drop in stock. It hasn’t been that bad.”

Rather than addressing voters directly about economic impacts, the administration has concentrated on limiting financial market volatility. These markets have experienced dramatic swings based on speculation about potential ceasefires or military escalation.

Trump demonstrated his contradictory messaging approach Monday morning before markets opened, posting on social media about significant progress in peace negotiations with Iran while simultaneously threatening to target civilian infrastructure like desalination facilities if an agreement wasn’t reached “shortly.”

The administration views financial markets as an indirect communication channel to voters, with Trump’s economic platform built on affordable gas prices, strong retirement account performance, and low mortgage rates.

However, this communication strategy appears to be losing impact as the president’s various statements have failed to address the fundamental issue of disrupted global energy supplies. Recent polling from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows only 38% of Americans approve of Trump’s economic handling, while 35% support his Iran policy.

Gene Sperling, who served as a senior economic advisor under Democratic presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden, argued that voters directly connect rising gas prices to Trump’s decision to attack Iran. He criticized what he called “simplistic jawboning” as inadequate for Americans paying over $4 per gallon for gasoline.

“Most advisers would say the president has to speak directly to the American people and fully acknowledge the economic pain that his policy has so directly caused in a short amount of time and make the case for why the national security concerns justify it,” Sperling explained. “Instead, you have a strategy of not recognizing or even dismissing people’s economic pain.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt characterized the oil price increases Monday as a “short-term fluctuation.”

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale University School of Management professor and co-author of “Trump’s Ten Commandments: Strategic Lessons from the Trump Leadership Toolbox,” believes Trump’s contradictory messaging is backfiring.

“The uncertainty is now soaring,” Sonnenfeld observed. “As the messaging to calm markets with false reassurances is having diminishing credibility in financial markets, so, too, has Trump diminished public confidence.”

Trump has maintained flexibility in his war strategy, though this has created confusion about his actual goals.

During Thursday’s Cabinet meeting, he claimed Iran was “begging” for a deal while threatening additional military strikes and insisting any economic damage would be temporary.

Following Friday’s market close, he postponed his deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil shipping route, announcing he would delay bombing Iranian energy facilities.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends” on Monday that Iran was allowing some tankers through the Strait of Hormuz and that markets remain “well supplied” due to strategic petroleum reserve releases and lifted sanctions on existing Russian and Iranian oil shipments.

“We are seeing more and more ships go through on a daily basis as individual countries cut deals with the Iranian regime for the time being,” Bessent explained. “But over time, the U.S. is going to retake control of the straits, and there will be freedom of navigation, whether it is through U.S. escorts or a multinational escort.”

Graham Steele, a former Biden administration Treasury official, noted that Trump’s messaging tactics “can work temporarily, but they have diminishing returns, over time,” when disconnected from concrete policies and outcomes.

“We saw a lot of the volatile market reactions initially, when he kept announcing these things and then walking them back,” Steele said. “The market reaction now is just a steady trend upward in prices,” adding that markets are “not responding to it in the same way anymore.”

The University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment dropped to 53.3 in March on Friday, reaching its lowest point since December. Survey director Joanne Hsu attributed the decline to financial market instability “in the wake of the Iran conflict,” which has reduced economic confidence among middle and higher-income households.

Hsu noted that survey respondents don’t expect sustained higher energy costs and stock declines, but warned this could shift if the conflict “becomes protracted or if higher energy prices pass through to overall inflation.”

PNC Financial Services chief economist Gus Faucher emphasized that low consumer sentiment doesn’t automatically indicate an approaching recession. However, he said consumers need to witness lower gas prices, stable stock markets, and reduced mortgage rates to improve their economic outlook, requiring a definitive conflict resolution rather than repeated presidential announcements.

“The proof is in the pudding,” Faucher stated. “People need to see some substantive improvements before they feel better about conditions.”

Legislators in Ohio’s House of Representatives have passed a controversial bill targeting drag performances in locations where children may be present. The proposed legislation would not completely prohibit all drag shows, but would specifically restrict those taking place in venues accessible to minors.

The measure received no support from Democratic representatives, with every Democratic state senator casting votes in opposition to the proposal. The bill has now advanced to Ohio’s Senate for further consideration.

Republican lawmakers backing the proposal argue that the legislation serves multiple purposes beyond regulating drag performances. “It also establishes clearer legal standards to help maintain privacy and safety in spaces designated for biological females,” supporters of the bill stated.

Transportation Security Administration workers have begun collecting their delayed paychecks, marking the first time they’ve been compensated since the Department of Homeland Security shutdown commenced more than six weeks ago.

The back pay distribution comes as relief for security personnel who have been working without compensation throughout the extended government closure. However, airport operations continue to face challenges, with lengthy security checkpoint delays persisting at various airports across the country.

The leader of the Cherokee Nation recently discussed his ongoing disputes with Oklahoma’s state government over tribal sovereignty and Native American rights.

Chuck Hoskin Jr., who serves as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, sat down with NPR’s Steve Inskeep to address his current conflicts with Oklahoma’s governor and the broader challenges facing tribal communities nationwide.

The conversation highlighted the continuing tensions between state and tribal governments over issues of sovereignty and self-governance that affect Native American communities across the country.

A seasoned Transportation Security Administration officer walked away from his career after nearly a decade of service when a federal government shutdown left him working without receiving his paycheck.

Robert Echeverria, who spent nine years screening passengers at Salt Lake City Airport, made the difficult decision to seek employment elsewhere when the partial government closure meant TSA workers continued reporting to their posts despite not being paid.

In an interview with NPR correspondent Leila Fadel, Echeverria explained the circumstances that led to his departure from the federal security agency, highlighting how the financial strain of unpaid labor during the shutdown ultimately drove him to pursue other career opportunities.

Officials in Florida gave the go-ahead Monday for an airport to bear President Donald Trump’s name, with the decision coming just hours before Trump announced his vision for a high-rise presidential library in Miami.

The airport naming approval represents another honor for the president in his home state, while the library project promises to create a distinctive skyline addition to South Florida’s largest city.

Trump disclosed details about the planned Miami tower that will eventually house his presidential materials and exhibits, marking a departure from traditional presidential library designs with its skyscraper format.

ATLANTA — DNA collection from convicted criminals has become routine practice across America’s justice system over the last thirty years, with many states now extending that practice to individuals arrested for serious offenses.

Pending Georgia legislation awaiting final approval would expand this practice significantly by mandating DNA collection from individuals facing minor misdemeanor charges — but exclusively when federal immigration officials have requested their detention. This could affect immigrants who may never face deportation.

Should the measure pass, Georgia would join just two other states that specifically target immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally for genetic material collection that wouldn’t apply to others. Florida enacted similar legislation in 2023, while Oklahoma authorized comparable DNA collection from undocumented immigrants in 2009, though implementation depends on available funding.

This legislative push coincides with President Donald Trump’s administration working to broaden DNA and biometric data use in immigration enforcement as part of plans to remove millions of people from the United States.

“It is one example of something we are seeing across the landscape, which is government actors at all levels vacuuming up DNA in all available contexts,” said Stevie Glaberson, director of research and advocacy at the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University law school.

The FBI established the National DNA Index System in 1998 to consolidate DNA samples from federal, state and local agencies. The system has expanded dramatically and currently holds over 26 million DNA profiles, primarily from individuals with criminal convictions.

Federal legislation from two decades ago permitted the attorney general to extend DNA collection to arrested individuals and noncitizens held under federal authority. However, exceptions granted by federal officials meant few immigrants underwent DNA collection.

This shifted in 2020 during Trump’s initial presidency when a Department of Justice regulation eliminated much of that flexibility. Subsequently, over five years, the Department of Homeland Security incorporated DNA profiles from more than 2.6 million detainees into the national database, according to Center on Privacy and Technology research.

The department declined to provide information to The Associated Press regarding what percentage of detained immigrants have had DNA collected during Trump’s current term.

However, the department seeks expanded authority. A proposed regulation would permit DNA collection, including from U.S. citizens, to establish family connections in immigrant benefit proceedings.

While numerous states gather DNA from felony arrestees, only 10 states collect it from certain misdemeanor arrests, such as sex crimes, and none collect it from all misdemeanor arrests, based on Associated Press analysis of Boise State University Department of Criminal Justice data.

Under Florida and Oklahoma statutes, any arrest could trigger DNA collection for immigrants subject to federal detainer requests. Officials from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation did not respond to inquiries about implementation of these laws.

The Georgia proposal would mandate DNA collection from immigrants charged with any misdemeanor or felony if U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has issued a detainer request but hasn’t collected the individual within 48 hours.

Republican state Sen. Tim Bearden, the bill’s sponsor, characterized the measure as a crime-solving tool.

“Technology is changing quickly, and DNA is one of those things that help us tremendously when we’re trying to make sure to bring justice to victims in this state and across this country,” Bearden said at a March hearing.

The Department of Homeland Security stated that “partnerships with law enforcement are critical to having the resources we need to arrest criminal illegal aliens across the country.”

A 2024 Georgia statute requires local law enforcement cooperation with federal authorities to identify and detain undocumented immigrants or face state funding loss. This year’s proposal would expand upon that requirement.

Legal experts warn it could lead to DNA collection from immigrants detained for minor infractions. Traffic violations treated as civil matters in other states are classified as misdemeanors in Georgia, making them subject to the proposed law, according to Mazie Lynn Guertin, executive director and policy advocate with the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

“We don’t think that swabbing a person who’s committed a traffic violation is a boon for public safety,” Guertin said. “The correlation between a broken tail light and a crime that’s solvable with DNA is pretty attenuated in most cases.”

Individuals subject to federal immigration detainer requests aren’t necessarily undocumented or deportable, as they may subsequently demonstrate legal status, noted Kyle Gomez-Leineweber, policy director for Common Cause Georgia. Yet such individuals could face DNA collection under the Georgia proposal.

“What this really does is it creates a two-tiered system where some of the DNA would be collected based off of the perception of an individual’s immigration status,” said Gomez-Leineweber.

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court validated a Maryland statute permitting DNA collection from individuals charged with — but not convicted of — certain serious crimes. That law allows database inclusion after probable cause determination for detention, requiring deletion if no conviction follows.

The Maryland decision frequently serves as justification for expanded DNA collection. However, some immigrant advocates question whether civil immigration detainers satisfy the probable cause standard necessary for constitutional DNA collection under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“There doesn’t appear to be any kind of meaningful justification for states to step in to require the collection of DNA — of genetic material — from noncitizens in their custody who have merely been accused of a crime, even a low-level crime,” said Jorge Loweree, managing director of the American Immigration Council. “It seems like this is just an effort to increase the surveillance of noncitizens.”

WASHINGTON — Internal divisions within the Democratic Party are threatening their efforts to reclaim control of the U.S. Senate.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer finds himself at odds with fellow Democratic senators over candidate selection in critical upcoming races. While Schumer has endorsed Governor Janet Mills in Maine’s pivotal contest, several of his Senate colleagues are supporting challenger Graham Platner, directly challenging Schumer’s electoral strategy. This pattern is emerging in other competitive states like Michigan and Minnesota, where progressive lawmakers are rallying behind anti-establishment contenders.

The disagreement extends beyond individual campaigns to fundamental questions about Democratic Party direction following Donald Trump’s second presidential victory and whether current leadership should continue.

“Clearly there’s a disagreement of strategy here,” stated New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich, who has endorsed Platner.

Heinrich further explained that “the business-as-usual calculation for what is going to be successful in a given election cycle does not necessarily, in my view, meet the moment.”

These internal tensions stem from Democratic voter frustration following the recent presidential election, where President Joe Biden initially sought re-election despite widespread age-related concerns before withdrawing and endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris, who ultimately lost to Trump.

Nan Whaley, an Ohio Democratic strategist who previously ran for governor, characterized the current debate as transcending traditional progressive versus moderate lines.

“It’s really about, who do you trust? Establishment or not establishment,” she explained. “And frankly, the establishment hasn’t given us a lot to trust these past few years.”

In Maine’s race, Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have supported Mills, a 78-year-old moderate serving her second gubernatorial term.

Platner, who works as both a veteran and oyster farmer, secured Senator Bernie Sanders’ endorsement within days of announcing his candidacy. His campaign has gained traction despite facing questions about previous controversial statements and a tattoo that resembles Nazi imagery.

Recent weeks have brought additional endorsements for Platner from Heinrich, Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego, and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren as his Capitol Hill support grows. Heinrich and Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse even hosted a fundraising event for his campaign.

Gallego, a freshman senator who won a competitive race in 2024, minimized the significance of these endorsements as criticism of party leadership.

“Senate leadership didn’t back me at the beginning. So I didn’t take that as a critique,” Gallego commented.

Michigan’s primary presents another contentious battle featuring three prominent candidates. State Senator Mallory McMorrow has declared she would not support Schumer for caucus leader if Democrats regain the majority, earning endorsements from four senators.

Abdul El-Sayed, campaigning from a more progressive position, has received Sanders’ backing while also promoting an anti-establishment message.

U.S. Representative Haley Stevens has aligned herself with establishment figures, collaborating with a former DSCC executive director and gaining support from two senators.

Democratic strategist Lis Smith characterized the endorsements in states like Maine and Michigan as “as much as a rebuke of Schumer as it is an endorsement of these candidates.”

“It’s pretty uncommon for sitting senators to endorse against the Senate leader,” Smith observed. “Senators are reading the tea leaves and are getting feedback from the grassroots that they are dissatisfied with Schumer’s performance as leader.”

Minnesota’s open-seat contest has similarly become a referendum on party direction. Representative Angie Craig represents the centrist option in the primary, with endorsements from House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Representative Nancy Pelosi. Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan, the more progressive alternative, has garnered support from Sanders, Warren, and others, including Minnesota Senator Tina Smith, who is leaving the seat.

“She understands that right now what we need are fierce fighters, people who are willing to stand up to the status quo,” Smith said in her endorsement.

Some friction dates back to March 2025, when Schumer joined Republicans in ending a government shutdown, prompting criticism from Democrats who felt he failed to adequately resist Trump’s agenda.

Later that year, Democrats maintained unity during a record-breaking shutdown battle, helping restore credibility with activists and progressives. However, divisions reemerged when moderate Democrats eventually aligned with Republicans, reigniting frustration with party leadership despite Schumer’s opposition to the move.

Since assuming Senate leadership in 2017, Schumer’s electoral performance has shown mixed results. He guided Democrats back to majority status in 2020 and increased their numbers in 2022, but suffered losses in both 2018 and 2024.

“Leader Schumer’s North Star is taking back the Senate and is pursuing a path to do just that,” said Allison Biasotti, Schumer’s spokesperson.

This cycle, he has recruited prominent candidates for challenging Senate races in Alaska, Ohio, and North Carolina. Maeve Coyle, DSCC communications director, credited Schumer with creating “a path to win a Democratic Senate majority this cycle” through his recruitment efforts.

“Senate Democrats overperformed in the last four election cycles and in 2026, we will win seats and flip the majority,” she added.

David Axelrod, former chief strategist for President Barack Obama, noted that serving as Senate leader presents constant challenges, and that Schumer “has been under fire for some time, particularly from progressives in the party.”

According to Axelrod, Schumer’s leadership tenure is likely tied directly to the 2026 midterm results.

“There’s questions as to whether he’ll run in 2028. There’s even questions as to whether he might be challenged as leader,” he said. “I think the results of this election may impact that.”

Currently, Schumer’s caucus maintains tentative support for his leadership. No members have explicitly demanded his resignation. However, dissatisfaction persists, with some openly questioning whether the party requires new direction.

“How people did politics in the 1990s is going to feel different than in the 2020s,” Heinrich noted.

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The Boss returned Tuesday evening to the city he immortalized in song, launching his newest American concert tour with a politically charged performance at Target Center.

Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band opened their “Land of Hope & Dreams American Tour” in Minneapolis, where the legendary musician debuted his protest anthem “Streets of Minneapolis” earlier this year following deadly confrontations between federal immigration officers and local residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

In a Wednesday interview with the Minnesota Star Tribune, Springsteen made clear his intentions for the tour. “This tour is going to be political and very topical about what’s going on in the country,” the New Jersey musician stated. “Minneapolis and St. Paul, that was the place that I wanted to begin it, and I wanted to end it in Washington.”

Speaking to a New York audience at a “Democracy Now!” anniversary event on March 23, Springsteen outlined his tour route, which includes stops in Portland, Oregon, and Los Angeles – “two other cities where they had to deal with ICE, ICE’s terror.” The tour concludes May 27 in the nation’s capital, where he promised to deliver pointed remarks aimed at the current administration.

The rock icon’s tribute song emerged during widespread protests as thousands of Minnesota residents demonstrated against federal immigration actions. Springsteen performed an acoustic version at Saturday’s massive “No Kings” rally at the state Capitol in St. Paul, addressing an estimated crowd of 100,000 people according to Minnesota State Patrol.

“This past winter, federal troops brought death and terror to the streets of Minneapolis,” Springsteen declared to the assembled crowd. “Well, they picked the wrong city. The power and the solidarity of the people of Minneapolis, of Minnesota, was an inspiration to the entire country. Your strength and your commitment told us that this is still America, and this reactionary nightmare, and these invasions of American cities will not stand.”

The accompanying music video for “Streets of Minneapolis” documented what the Trump administration described as its most extensive immigration enforcement operation nationwide, involving 3,000 federal agents deployed to the Twin Cities area.

“We’ll take our stand for this land/And the stranger in our midst/We’ll remember the names of those who died/On the streets of Minneapolis,” Springsteen’s lyrics proclaimed.

The powerful video footage included scenes of heavily armed tactical officers, featuring operation commander Greg Bovino, who was subsequently reassigned from Minneapolis and is now planning retirement. One particularly striking image showed 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos in his bunny hat and Spider-Man backpack, encircled by immigration agents – a photograph that sparked international condemnation.

Additional footage captured spontaneous memorial sites established where Good and Pretti lost their lives, combined with final moments of their fatal encounters with federal officers. The video reached its peak with scenes of massive street demonstrations where Minneapolis residents chanted “ICE Out!”

The ongoing animosity between Springsteen and President Trump has intensified over recent years. During his European performances last year, the musician condemned the Trump administration as “corrupt, incompetent and treasonous,” while characterizing Trump as an “unfit president” heading a “rogue government” filled with officials who have “no concern or idea for what it means to be deeply American.”

President Trump has responded with his own harsh criticism, labeling Springsteen a “dried out prune of a rocker” in social media posts. “Never liked him, never liked his music or his Radical Left Politics and, importantly, he’s not a talented guy — just a pushy, obnoxious JERK,” Trump wrote online.

This politically motivated tour continues Springsteen’s decades-long tradition of socially conscious performances, echoing his 1984 “Born in the U.S.A.” tour launch in St. Paul. That album’s frequently misinterpreted title track actually served as a Vietnam veteran’s bitter commentary on his war experience and homecoming.

Governor Gavin Newsom of California issued an executive order Monday establishing new requirements for companies that want to do business with the state, mandating they implement protections against artificial intelligence misuse that could generate illegal material, create harmful bias, or violate civil rights.

Under the new directive, state agencies must add watermarks to any images or videos created using artificial intelligence technology, following state-issued guidelines designed to combat misinformation. The order also addresses federal security concerns by allowing California to conduct independent evaluations of companies flagged as supply chain risks by the federal government, potentially keeping them as contractors if the state determines they pose no threat.

The timing of this order follows the Pentagon’s recent decision to designate artificial intelligence company Anthropic as a formal supply-chain security risk, preventing government contractors from utilizing the firm’s technology in military-related work.

California’s Department of General Services and Department of Technology have been given 120 days to develop recommendations for new vendor certification requirements related to AI technology. These certifications would enable companies to demonstrate responsible artificial intelligence governance and public safety protections.

The executive order reflects California’s commitment to maintaining an independent regulatory approach, despite pressure from some Republican legislators to align with federal oversight and regulations.

Earlier this year in February, California Attorney General Rob Bonta explained in a Reuters interview that his office is building internal capabilities through its “AI oversight, accountability and regulation program.”

Two prominent U.S. Senators have confronted the head of the Federal Communications Commission regarding his decision to greenlight a major broadcasting industry merger, according to a Bloomberg News report released Monday.

Senators Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell directed their concerns toward FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, expressing disapproval of his choice to authorize Nexstar’s acquisition of Tegna.

The report regarding the senators’ challenge to the FCC chief has not been independently confirmed by Reuters at this time.

WASHINGTON — Florida officials gave the green light Monday for Palm Beach International Airport to bear President Donald Trump’s name, while Trump simultaneously released architectural plans for a towering presidential library in Miami.

Governor Ron DeSantis put his signature on legislation Monday permitting the airport to become the President Donald J. Trump International Airport. The rebrand will officially occur in July, transforming the facility located close to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property.

On the same day, Trump shared a promotional video on social media displaying what appear to be computer-generated images of his planned presidential library. The dramatic presentation, accompanied by stirring music, showcases a striking high-rise that would join Miami’s downtown skyline, featuring Trump’s distinctive gold lettering characteristic of his other properties.

The presentation includes sweeping views of both the building’s exterior and interior spaces, featuring a presidential aircraft positioned in the entrance hall next to a golden escalator reminiscent of the one Trump descended during his 2015 campaign launch. Additional footage reveals a massive ballroom similar to one he’s designing for the White House, a mock Oval Office, rooftop green spaces, and a large golden Trump statue.

Design credits in the video point to Bermello Ajamil, a Miami architectural company. Trump shared the footage without additional commentary, only providing a link to the library’s new website. The site currently displays “coming soon” along with a donation portal.

White House representatives did not immediately provide comment regarding the library plans.

Miami Dade College donated approximately three acres of valuable downtown property for the proposed library. A legal challenge to the donation was thrown out by a judge in December, who rejected claims that the college board failed to provide adequate public notification. The donated land carries an estimated worth exceeding $67 million.

Eric Trump, the president’s son, has previously described the library as destined to be “one of the most beautiful buildings ever built” and “an Icon on the Miami skyline.”

Following his return to office, Trump has pursued having his name attached to various American landmarks and institutions, including the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Kennedy Center for performing arts, and even U.S. currency.

In Palm Beach, officials recently renamed a roadway connecting the airport to Trump’s residence as Donald J. Trump Boulevard.

According to a Wall Street Journal report published Monday, President Donald Trump has informed his advisors that he would consider concluding military operations against Iran even if the strategically important Strait of Hormuz waterway remains mostly blocked to shipping traffic.

The newspaper cited administration sources who said Trump would be willing to postpone the complicated mission of reopening the crucial shipping lane for a future time rather than continue the current military engagement.

Reuters has not been able to independently confirm the details of this report.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California sheriff running for governor has temporarily halted his investigation into alleged election irregularities after facing increasing legal pressure from state officials and voting rights advocates.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican candidate for governor, announced Saturday that his department was suspending the inquiry due to what he called “politically motivated lawsuits and court filings.”

The decision follows legal action initiated last week by Democratic state Attorney General Rob Bonta and the UCLA Voting Rights Project, both challenging Bianco’s jurisdiction over voting materials.

Bianco had maintained that his investigation and the confiscation of more than 650,000 November election ballots was lawful and had received approval from a local judge. Even after Bonta’s office directed him to cease operations, the sheriff continued by collecting additional ballots from county election facilities last week.

Attorney General Bonta’s office announced Monday it would proceed with legal filings in both the California Supreme Court and superior court.

“Our focus is on what the Sheriff does, not what he says,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

The UCLA Voting Rights Project filed a separate petition Monday representing multiple Riverside County residents, requesting the state’s highest court to compel Bianco to return the seized ballots during ongoing litigation.

“Our election law is clear that voted ballots are to remain in the custody of election officials, and nothing the sheriff has presented changes that basic rule,” said Sonni Waknin, an attorney with the organization.

The controversy began in February and intensified recently when Bianco confiscated 1,000 containers of voting materials while investigating concerns raised by a local citizen organization regarding ballot tallies from a November 2025 redistricting special election. County election administrators informed the Board of Supervisors last month that these concerns lacked merit. Despite orders from Bonta to cease the investigation, Bianco obtained an additional 426 ballot containers last week.

This ballot examination occurs as President Donald Trump continues to question 2020 election outcomes, pointing to unproven fraud claims. Trump’s administration has recently confiscated ballots and documentation from a Georgia election facility. Several Republican officials have adopted similar rhetoric regarding voting procedures in their respective states.

WASHINGTON — Legal representatives for California Representative Eric Swalwell issued a formal cease-and-desist order on Monday, instructing FBI Director Kash Patel to immediately stop any efforts to make public documents from a years-old investigation that involved the congressman and an alleged Chinese spy. The inquiry concluded without any criminal charges being filed.

The legal notice warns Patel that releasing these investigative records would violate federal statutes and established Justice Department protocols. Swalwell’s legal team has given the FBI director three days to confirm he will honor their request and cautioned that continued attempts to make the files public will trigger litigation.

“The Congressman has never been accused of wrongdoing in that matter and your attempt to release the file is a transparent attempt to smear him and undermine his campaign for Governor of California,” stated the legal notice from Swalwell’s lawyers, Sean Hecker and Norm Eisen. “Your actions threat to expose you, others at the FBI and the FBI itself to significant legal liability. Indeed, disclosure of the investigative file would violate federal law in several respects.”

According to initial reporting by The Washington Post, Patel has instructed FBI personnel to examine and redact materials from the investigation in preparation for public release, which represents an unusual departure from standard Justice Department practice of keeping criminal investigation records confidential when no charges result. FBI officials have not responded to requests for comment on Monday, though they previously told the Post that the bureau “prepares documents for numerous different reasons.”

The federal investigation focused on Swalwell’s connections to Christine Fang, a suspected Chinese operative who became involved with Swalwell’s political activities during his initial congressional campaign in 2012 and helped with fundraising efforts for his 2014 race.

Law enforcement officials informed Swalwell about their concerns and provided Congress with information about Fang in 2015, after which Swalwell states he ended all communication with her. No accusations of misconduct were made against him, and a House Ethics Committee review that began in 2021 concluded two years later without taking any action.

Swalwell has been a prominent opponent of President Donald Trump and was selected as one of the House impeachment managers during Trump’s second impeachment proceedings in his initial presidency. He has also had public disagreements with Patel, who included Swalwell among dozens of Trump critics mentioned in his 2023 publication titled “Government Gangsters.”

Federal authorities are examining whether two sisters holding prominent political positions in New York accepted illegal payments connected to city funding for migrant shelter operations, according to search warrant documents obtained by news outlets.

The investigation targets Brooklyn Democrat Councilmember Farah Louis and her sister Debbie Louis, who works as Governor Kathy Hochul’s assistant secretary for New York City intergovernmental affairs. The March 19 search warrant also identifies Edu Hermelyn, married to state Assembly member and Brooklyn Democratic Party chair Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn.

Governor Hochul’s office confirmed that Debbie Louis was suspended from her position last week following the discovery of the federal corruption probe. Attempts to reach Louis for comment were unsuccessful, and neither Farah Louis nor Edu Hermelyn responded to requests for statements.

According to the warrant documentation, investigators are examining whether the three individuals received compensation for actions benefiting BHRAGS Home Care Inc., a Brooklyn company that previously specialized in home healthcare services.

The company secured its initial emergency migrant shelter contract in 2022 when asylum seekers began arriving in large numbers throughout the city. Since then, BHRAGS has obtained more than twelve contracts for homeless assistance programs valued at over $200 million combined.

Roberto Samedy, the executive director of BHRAGS, declined to provide comment through his legal representative.

Brooklyn’s U.S. attorney’s office also refused to discuss the ongoing investigation.

Legal experts note that search warrant approval does not guarantee criminal charges will follow, but indicates investigators convinced a federal magistrate that evidence gathering was warranted.

All three individuals under scrutiny maintain significant roles within Brooklyn’s Democratic organization, which has encountered multiple controversies recently.

Hermelyn previously worked as a senior advisor to former New York City Mayor Eric Adams but stepped down amid concerns that his Brooklyn district leadership role created conflicts with city employment regulations.

Following his departure from city government, he provided consultation services to former Governor Andrew Cuomo during his unsuccessful mayoral campaign.

A financial representative working for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly sought to make a substantial investment in defense industry stocks during the weeks before a joint U.S.-Israeli military operation targeting Iran, according to a Monday report from the Financial Times.

The broker, working through Morgan Stanley, reached out to investment giant BlackRock during February regarding a multimillion-dollar purchase of the company’s Defense Industrials Active ETF, the report stated. This contact occurred shortly before Washington launched its military response against Tehran, according to three sources with knowledge of the situation cited by the Financial Times.

Plans to honor conservative activist Charlie Kirk with a highway designation in Arizona have been blocked by the state’s governor, sparking a political dispute over the decision.

Governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, rejected the Republican-backed proposal on Friday that would have named Loop 202, which runs through the Phoenix metropolitan area, after Kirk. The conservative figure, who founded Turning Point USA and was known for campus speaking events, was killed during an appearance at Utah Valley University last year.

The controversy centers on competing claims about political motivations behind the naming process.

Hobbs defended her decision in a written statement to legislators, arguing that Republicans overstepped by bypassing the established process for highway designations.

“I will continue working toward solutions that bring people together, but this bill falls short of that standard by inserting politics into a function of government that should remain nonpartisan,” Hobbs stated.

Republican Senate President Warren Petersen, who authored the legislation, accused the governor of breaking established customs for recognizing influential figures.

“The veto tells people that recognition now depends on political alignment, not contribution,” Petersen responded. “That’s not how Arizona has ever approached these decisions, and it’s a disappointing shift for our state.”

The Arizona dispute reflects a broader national movement to commemorate Kirk. Data from bill-tracking service Plural shows lawmakers across more than 20 states have proposed over 60 measures related to Kirk’s legacy, according to Associated Press research.

These proposals range from memorial designations and commemorative days to legislation promoting campus free speech protections and educational initiatives highlighting Judeo-Christian influences in American history.

Both Arizona and Florida were early adopters of Kirk-related legislation. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has not yet signed his state’s version, which would create “Charlie Kirk Memorial Avenue” in Miami-Dade County alongside “President Donald J. Trump Boulevard” in Broward County.

WASHINGTON – Military officials announced Monday they are launching an investigation into why Army helicopters conducted operations near the Nashville home of musician Kid Rock, a prominent supporter of President Donald Trump, as well as near ongoing anti-administration demonstrations.

The country music star shared footage on social media over the weekend displaying two Apache helicopters flying past his Tennessee residence. In the clip, Rock can be observed giving a military salute to one of the aircraft while positioned near his backyard pool.

The same military aircraft were reportedly observed flying in close proximity to protesters in Nashville who were demonstrating against Trump’s immigration enforcement policies, potential military action in Iran, and other administration initiatives.

Major Montrell Russell, speaking for the U.S. Army, explained the situation: “Army aviators must adhere to strict safety standards, professionalism, and established flight regulations. An administrative review is underway to assess the mission and verify compliance with regulations and airspace requirements.”

Russell continued: “Appropriate action will be taken if any violations are found. Until the review is complete, there will be no further comment.”

The incident raises questions about military neutrality, as armed forces are expected to remain nonpartisan and serve the Constitution rather than any specific political faction or ideology.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been actively restructuring military leadership since taking office, removing senior officers while working to advance Trump’s defense priorities and eliminate what he characterizes as discriminatory diversity programs.

Congressional Democrats have expressed concern that the current administration is attempting to leverage military resources for political purposes.

In his social media post featuring the helicopter footage, Rock made critical remarks about California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.

“God Bless America and all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend her,” Rock wrote alongside the helicopter video.

The weekend demonstrations were part of the nationwide “No Kings” protest movement, with organizers planning more than 3,200 events across all states. Previous iterations of these protests have drawn millions of participants nationwide, with local media reporting thousands participating in the Nashville demonstrations.

A satirical art installation featuring an ornate golden toilet throne appeared on Washington’s National Mall this week, serving as pointed commentary on President Donald Trump’s extensive White House renovation projects.

The elaborate display, designed to mimic marble and gold styling, showcases a toilet in place of a traditional throne seat, accompanied by a sign declaring “A Throne Fit for a King.”

One of the installation’s plaques delivers sharp criticism, stating: “In a time of unprecedented division, escalating conflict, and economic turmoil, President Trump focused on what truly mattered: remodeling the Lincoln bathroom in the White House. It stands as a tribute to an unwavering visionary who looked down, saw a problem and painted it gold.”

Since returning to the presidency, Trump has initiated sweeping renovation projects throughout the White House and broader Washington area. His changes include updating the bathroom adjacent to the Lincoln Bedroom, incorporating extensive gold accents in the Oval Office, demolishing the East Wing to construct a ballroom, and developing plans to redesign the Kennedy Center performing arts facility.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle defended the renovation efforts in a written response, stating Trump is “making the White House and our entire Nation’s Capital more beautiful than ever before.”

“The president will never stop working on behalf of the American people and fulfill the promises that he was overwhelmingly elected to do,” Ingle commented when asked about the satirical throne installation.

The artwork includes toilet paper bearing the text “The Secret Handshake,” which matches the name of a group that previously claimed credit for another controversial statue depicting Trump alongside deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein. Media outlets were unable to contact the organization for confirmation.

Officials from the National Park Service, which oversees the National Mall, have not yet provided any statement regarding the installation.

A coalition of health and environmental advocates launched legal action Monday against the Environmental Protection Agency, challenging the agency’s decision to eliminate mercury pollution controls for coal-burning power facilities.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, involves several prominent organizations including Earthjustice, the American Lung Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The legal challenge targets the EPA’s February decision to reverse the Biden administration’s 2024 strengthening of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, the now-eliminated update would have cut mercury pollution from coal facilities by 70 percent and reduced emissions of toxic metals like nickel, arsenic, and lead by two-thirds. The standards were projected to prevent $420 million in health-related costs through 2037.

The current administration also granted two-year exemptions from air quality requirements for older coal plants last year, which the coalition says allowed major polluting facilities to avoid compliance. Following these exemptions, the groups report that sulfur dioxide emissions increased 18 percent nationwide, while neurotoxic mercury emissions rose 9 percent.

In their statement, the coalition expressed concern about broader regulatory changes: “This administration is not just rolling back rules, it is eliminating the monitoring infrastructure needed to know what is coming out of these smokestacks in the first place. It is allowing coal plants to spew out more neurotoxic mercury into our air and food supply, while simultaneously keeping the communities most at risk in the dark about how serious that threat is.”

The legal action represents the latest effort by environmental and public health advocates to challenge federal policy changes they argue threaten air quality and public safety.

President Donald Trump delivered fresh warnings to Iran on Monday, threatening military action against the nation’s energy facilities unless the Strait of Hormuz waterway is reopened. The president also revealed that America is in negotiations with what he described as a “new and more reasonable regime.”

In a post on Truth Social, Trump stated the United States is conducting “serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME” to halt military operations in Iran. He claimed “great progress has been made,” but warned that without a deal and the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz for “Open for Business,” America could “blow up and completely obliterat[e]” Iran’s electric generating plants and oil wells, as well as Kharg Island.

Trump justified the potential strikes “in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime’s 47 year ‘Reign of Terror.’”

These latest remarks build on comments Trump delivered Sunday, where he suggested America might soon reach an accord with Iran. During that speech, he revealed the U.S. is conducting “direct and indirect” talks and characterized the situation as “very good,” stating, “I think we’ll make a deal with them very soon. It may not happen, but I do see an agreement with Iran; it could happen soon.”

In a Sunday interview with the Financial Times, Trump also discussed the possibility of seizing Iranian oil resources. “To be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran, but some stupid people back in the US say: ‘Why are you doing that?’ But they’re stupid people,” he told the publication.

Trump continued, “Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t. We have a lot of options,” and noted, “It would also mean we had to be there [in Kharg Island] for a while.” He added, “I don’t think they have any defense. We could take it very easily.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, U.S. officials have indicated Trump is weighing a specialized ground mission to remove 1,000 pounds of uranium from Iran, though no final determination has been reached.

MINNEAPOLIS — Federal officials have initiated legal action against Minnesota and its high school sports governing organization, following through on warnings to take action against the state’s policy permitting transgender students to participate in girls’ athletic competitions.

This legal challenge represents part of a nationwide debate concerning transgender youth rights. Over 25 states have enacted legislation preventing transgender women and girls from taking part in specific sports programs, with some also restricting gender-affirming medical procedures for minors. Various court decisions have halted certain policies.

Monday’s federal filing claims Minnesota’s Department of Education and the Minnesota State High School League are in violation of Title IX, the federal statute prohibiting sex-based discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal dollars.

“The Trump Administration does not tolerate flawed state policies that ignore biological reality and unfairly undermine girls on the playing field,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement.

State attorney general representatives were working to prepare a response, while league officials had not yet provided comment on the matter.

Federal authorities have pursued comparable legal actions against Maine and California, while also threatening funding cuts to various universities regarding transgender athlete policies, including San Jose State in California and the University of Pennsylvania.

Minnesota leadership has consistently opposed federal efforts to exclude trans athletes from girls’ sports programs. State officials filed their own preemptive legal action last April, arguing Minnesota’s human rights legislation takes precedence over executive orders from President Donald Trump issued last year. Their filing also maintains the state already follows Title IX requirements. A decision remains pending on the federal government’s request to dismiss that case.

Federal prosecutors stated in their announcement that Minnesota breaks Title IX rules “by requiring girls to compete against boys in athletic competitions that are designated exclusively for girls and allowing boys to invade intimate spaces designated exclusively for girls, such as multi-person locker rooms and bathrooms.”

Justice Department records show Minnesota’s Department of Education receives over $3 billion each year in federal support from the U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. Officials say this funding depends on Title IX compliance.

The federal case seeks a court declaration finding Minnesota in breach of Title IX and demands the state ban transgender girls from participating in girls’ high school athletics.

Civil rights divisions at the Education and Health and Human Services departments warned the state and league last September they could face legal consequences unless they ceased violating federal regulations.

WASHINGTON — Legal representatives for The New York Times returned to federal court Monday, claiming the Pentagon continues to defy a judicial ruling that struck down restrictive media access regulations at the Defense Department’s main facility.

Federal Judge Paul Friedman heard additional arguments from both the newspaper’s legal team and Trump administration officials but did not issue an immediate decision from the courtroom. The Times maintains that Pentagon leadership has created an alternative press policy designed to work around the judge’s March 20 decision.

Earlier this month, Friedman ruled in favor of The Times, determining that the Pentagon’s updated credentialing requirements infringed upon reporters’ First Amendment free speech protections and due process guarantees. His ruling mandated the restoration of press credentials for seven Times journalists and emphasized the decision covered “all regulated parties.”

Attorney Theodore Boutrous, representing The Times, told the court that Pentagon officials responded to Friedman’s directive by creating an updated policy featuring “radical new restrictions” on media personnel.

“They’ve only made things worse,” Boutrous stated.

Defense Department lawyer Sarah Welch countered that the military’s updated media access guidelines contain multiple “safe harbors” that protect journalists conducting standard news reporting activities. “The department has fully complied in good faith with that (March 20) order,” Welch informed the judge.

According to a court document filed Sunday, Times national security correspondent Julian Barnes described how Pentagon personnel informed him and fellow reporters last week that their updated credentials would provide entry to a designated press space within the Pentagon library. However, Barnes explained that journalists could only reach the library via a hallway or shuttle service they lacked authorization to use — a situation that drew a sharp reaction from Friedman.

“How weird is that?” the judge questioned. “Is it Catch-22? Is it Kafka? What’s going on here?”

Last October, journalists from major news organizations left the building rather than accept the updated regulations. The Times filed legal action against the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December to contest the policy.

Legal counsel for The Times charged the Pentagon with breaking both “the letter and spirit” of the judge’s March 20 ruling by creating a substitute “interim” policy requiring credentialed journalists to have escorts when entering the facility. The newspaper’s attorneys argue the newest policy also establishes unprecedented guidelines governing when reporters may grant anonymity to information sources.

“The intent is obvious: The Interim Policy is an attempted end-run around this Court’s ruling,” attorneys for the newspaper stated.

Government legal representatives maintained that the Pentagon’s substitute policy completely adheres to the judge’s instructions.

“In effect, Plaintiffs ask this Court to expand the Order to prohibit the Department from ever addressing the security of the Pentagon through a press credentialing policy with conditions that may address similar topics or concerns as the enjoined conditions. The Order does not say that, and this Court should not read it to say that,” Justice Department lawyers argued.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell previously announced the administration’s intention to appeal Friedman’s March 20 ruling.

The Pentagon Press Association, whose membership includes Associated Press journalists, stated that the Pentagon’s temporary policy maintains elements that Friedman ruled unconstitutional while introducing additional restrictions on credential recipients.

“The Interim Policy moves reporters’ workspace to an annex facility outside the Pentagon and prohibits any reporter from moving within the Pentagon itself without an escort, further limiting their ability to actually do journalism in the forum designated specifically for that purpose,” wrote an association lawyer.

The existing Pentagon press corps consists primarily of conservative media organizations that accepted the policy. Reporters from outlets that declined to agree to the updated regulations, including the AP, have maintained their military coverage.

Friedman, appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, noted in his ruling that recent U.S. military actions in Venezuela and Iran underscore the importance of public access to information regarding government operations.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has thrown his hat into the ring once more, seeking to reclaim the congressional seat he previously held before his political career was derailed by a highly publicized extramarital affair in 2009.

The 65-year-old politician submitted his candidacy documents to state election officials with little time to spare, filing just hours before the cutoff for South Carolina’s 1st District Republican primary scheduled for June 9.

Sanford’s political journey began in this very district, where he emerged as an unknown candidate with minimal public recognition. Despite starting as an underdog, he managed to secure second place in the initial primary before ultimately claiming victory in the runoff election. After serving six years in Congress, he successfully mounted a gubernatorial campaign, once again fighting through a competitive primary field before defeating the final Democratic incumbent governor.

However, his eight-year tenure as governor became infamous due to what became known as the “Appalachian Trail” incident — a euphemism for Sanford’s secret trip to Argentina to meet his mistress. During his absence, his spouse, children, and government staff were left without knowledge of his whereabouts.

Despite facing an ethics investigation and widespread demands for his resignation, Sanford refused to step down and completed his gubernatorial term on his own timeline.

Following his gubernatorial exit in 2013, Sanford successfully reclaimed his former House seat by defeating 15 opponents across the primary and runoff elections. He secured two additional complete terms before losing to a Republican rival in 2018 who enjoyed endorsement from then-President Donald Trump.

The district subsequently changed hands to Democratic control that November for the first time in many years, though current GOP Representative Nancy Mace recaptured it in 2020. Mace is now pursuing the governor’s office this election cycle.

Sanford also made a brief presidential bid in 2020, attempting to challenge Trump for the Republican nomination before withdrawing prior to the New Hampshire primary without participating in his home state’s GOP contest.

Attempts to reach Sanford for comment on Monday were unsuccessful. Following his departure from the House, Sanford has maintained control of more than $1.3 million in federal campaign funds, resources he can now deploy in what is already shaping up to be a competitive primary featuring numerous Republican and Democratic contenders.

Following weeks of disruption at airports nationwide, Transportation Security Administration officials announced that federal workers are receiving their first paychecks in weeks, with payments beginning as early as Monday.

Several major airport security checkpoints, including facilities in Atlanta and Houston, showed notable improvements in processing times during Monday morning operations.

However, uncertainty remains about when security screening delays will consistently return to standard levels, and questions persist about the duration of federal immigration personnel assignments at airports during the ongoing spring break travel period.

The Department of Homeland Security funding lapse has created widespread travel disruptions and raised concerns about potential airport shutdowns as unpaid TSA personnel began calling out from work. These employees were still recovering from financial hardships following an extended federal government closure last fall.

Screening delays continued exceeding two hours at New York’s LaGuardia Airport on Monday morning. Baltimore-Washington International Airport maintained its recommendation for passengers to arrive three hours ahead of scheduled flights, cautioning that extended wait periods may persist.

Following bipartisan congressional pressure, President Donald Trump directed the Department of Homeland Security on Friday to immediately compensate TSA officers to address the extensive delays affecting air travel. This decision followed Trump’s rejection of bipartisan legislative proposals to fund TSA operations while ongoing negotiations continue with Democrats, who have demanded restrictions on Trump’s immigration enforcement and deportation initiatives before approving additional funding.

Transportation security personnel have worked without compensation since DHS appropriations expired in February. The department’s closure reached 44 days on Sunday, surpassing the previous record of 43 days set during last fall’s comprehensive federal government shutdown.

The funding gap has generated not only passenger delays but also threats of facility closures as financially strained TSA employees stopped reporting for duty. These same workers had previously endured the nation’s most prolonged government shutdown during the fall. Several airports recorded absence rates exceeding 40%, while nearly 500 transportation security officers among the agency’s approximately 50,000-person workforce resigned during the closure.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel were deployed to select airports one week ago to assist with security operations as TSA employee absences increased across the country. The duration of their assignment, according to White House border czar Tom Homan, will depend on how rapidly TSA staff return to their positions. Agency officials stated that TSA “has immediately begun the process of paying its workforce,” with compensation arriving “as early as Monday.”

WASHINGTON — On Wednesday, the nation’s highest court examined arguments regarding President Trump’s executive directive that challenges automatic citizenship for certain children born on American soil. The order, issued January 20, 2025, during Trump’s inaugural day back in the presidency, conflicts with the 14th Amendment established after the Civil War and an 86-year-old federal statute that has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to virtually all individuals born within U.S. borders, excluding only children of foreign diplomats and enemy forces. To date, every judicial body that has reviewed this directive has deemed it unlawful and blocked its implementation.

This push to eliminate birthright citizenship represents one component of the Trump administration’s comprehensive immigration enforcement strategy, which encompasses increased deportation operations, reduced refugee admissions, and halted asylum processing at the border.

The matter represents another challenge for the Supreme Court, which has previously permitted certain immigration restrictions to proceed after lower courts initially halted them. The current case originated in New Hampshire, where federal District Judge Joseph N. LaPlante determined the executive order “likely violates” both constitutional principles and existing federal statutes.

The opening language of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause establishes citizenship for “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The legal dispute centers on interpreting the concluding phrase regarding jurisdiction, language that also appears in citizenship legislation from 1940 and 1952.

Trump’s position, outlined in his directive called “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” and supported by certain conservative legal experts, argues that individuals residing illegally or temporarily in the country fall outside U.S. “jurisdiction” and consequently their American-born children should not receive citizenship.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote that the court should utilize this case to correct “long-enduring misconceptions about the Constitution’s meaning.”

Sauer drew parallels between this case and pivotal Supreme Court decisions, including the groundbreaking 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling that ended school segregation and the significant 2008 Heller decision that established an individual constitutional right to possess firearms for personal protection.

Two Republican candidates with different approaches to implementing former President Trump’s election reform priorities will compete Tuesday for Arkansas’ Secretary of State nomination in a primary runoff.

Army veteran Bryan Norris and state Senator Kim Hammer emerged as the leading vote recipients in the March 3 Republican primary, though neither secured enough support to avoid Tuesday’s runoff contest.

The victorious candidate will challenge Democrat Kelly Grappe, who secured her party’s nomination without opposition.

Arkansas’ Secretary of State manages state business registrations and maintains the capitol building and grounds, though the position is most recognized for supervising federal, state and local elections throughout Arkansas.

While both candidates have promoted their alignment with Trump’s election reform goals, Norris and Hammer hold contrasting positions on election management practices. Norris advocates for complete manual ballot counting without automated tabulation systems. Meanwhile, Hammer crafted 2023 legislation mandating that hand-counted ballots work with state tabulation machinery and requiring counties choosing manual counting to cover related expenses.

Complete manual ballot counting has gained popularity among Trump supporters following the former president’s unsuccessful efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. However, subsequent attempts at comprehensive hand-counting have demonstrated the method’s time-intensive nature, high costs, and susceptibility to human mistakes.

Hammer has secured backing from Arkansas’ Republican leadership, including Senator Tom Cotton, Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Lieutenant Governor Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General Tim Griffin, and departing Secretary of State Cole Jester. Norris has gained support from former national security adviser Michael Flynn and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, both prominent figures who disputed the 2020 election and remain Trump allies.

When endorsing Hammer, Jester urged Norris to withdraw from the contest due to the candidate’s history of confrontational and profanity-filled social media content. Speaking with KATV, Norris admitted to using “some salty language from time to time” but promised, “you’re never going to hear me talk or speak that way again.”

Norris narrowly led Hammer in the three-candidate primary, with both receiving approximately 34% of votes. Miller County Judge Cathy Hardin Harrison captured roughly 32% of the vote.

Counties where Trump won with 70% or more support in 2024 contributed slightly over half of all primary votes. Norris showed marginally stronger performance than Harrison and Hammer in these stronghold areas, while Hammer performed somewhat better in other regions.

The state’s largest population centers – Pulaski, Benton and Washington counties – generated the highest vote totals in the March 3 primary. Little Rock sits in Pulaski County, where former Vice President Kamala Harris achieved her strongest Arkansas showing in the 2024 presidential race. Despite Pulaski’s status as the most populous county, Benton County typically wields greater influence in Republican primaries, as demonstrated on March 3.

The eventual Republican nominee will enter the general election with significant advantages. Arkansas hasn’t elected a Democratic secretary of state in two decades, and no Democrat has won any statewide position since 2010.

Several Arkansas districts will also select nominees for state Senate and House positions on Tuesday. Republicans maintain commanding majorities in both legislative chambers.

Voting concludes at 7:30 p.m. local time, which translates to 8:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

Participation in Tuesday’s runoff doesn’t require having voted in the March 3 primary. However, voters who participated in the earlier primary must stay within their chosen party’s runoff. Republican primary participants cannot vote in Democratic runoffs and vice versa. Non-partisan primary voters may choose either party’s runoff.

For those who skipped the party primaries, Arkansas Democrats permit any registered voter to participate in Democratic contests, while Republicans prevent registered Democrats from voting in Republican races.

Arkansas had approximately 1.8 million registered voters during the March 3 primary.

The Republican secretary of state primary drew more than 266,000 participants. State Senate District 15’s Democratic primary recorded about 9,300 total votes, while five of six state House districts heading to runoffs each tallied between 4,400 and 5,200 votes. The Democratic primary for state House District 35 was the exception with roughly 1,700 total votes.

During 2022’s statewide office primaries, approximately 52% of Democratic voters and 42% of Republican voters submitted ballots before Election Day.

More than 13,000 statewide Republican runoff ballots were already cast by Thursday.

In March 3’s GOP Senate primary, initial results appeared at 8:32 p.m. Eastern Time, just two minutes after polls closed. The final vote update occurred at 2:04 a.m. Eastern Time with over 99% of votes tallied.

County election administrators across Arkansas typically release complete or nearly complete early and absentee voting results in their first evening update, before reporting any Election Day in-person results.

Following Tuesday’s results, 217 days will remain until the 2026 midterm elections.

WASHINGTON — Courts throughout the nation have consistently rejected President Donald Trump’s directive aimed at eliminating birthright citizenship for babies born to parents who are in the country without legal status or on temporary visas.

The nation’s highest court conducted oral arguments Wednesday regarding the Trump administration’s challenge to a New Hampshire federal judge’s decision, which determined the executive action signed during Trump’s first day back in office “likely violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution” and existing federal statutes.

Trump’s directive represented one component of his administration’s extensive immigration enforcement strategy, although the citizenship limitations have not been implemented.

The central debate revolves around interpreting the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices have expressed clear opposition to Trump’s directive. Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared in June that “With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution,” referencing an 1809 opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall. Sotomayor, alongside Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, opposed a ruling by the court’s six conservative members that restricted federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions during an earlier phase of this citizenship controversy.

After the high court’s ruling, various judges have detailed their reasoning for considering Trump’s birthright citizenship order unconstitutional, inconsistent with established citizenship principles, contradictory to a 126-year-old Supreme Court precedent, and incompatible with the 14th Amendment’s original 1868 meaning.

These jurists have also explained their rationale for blocking the order’s nationwide implementation, despite the Supreme Court’s injunction restrictions.

The following represents excerpts from judicial opinions and the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which judges reference as the primary precedent supporting their decisions:

Justice Horace Gray authored the majority decision in the 6-2 ruling establishing Wong’s citizenship through American birth: “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words ‘all persons born in the United States’ by the addition ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases, — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state.”

Gray continued: “The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

“The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” Gray wrote.

Chief Justice Melville Fuller disagreed, arguing Wong could not claim citizenship because his parents maintained loyalty to the Chinese emperor and weren’t fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Justice John Marshall Harlan supported this dissenting view.

“Children born in the United States and subject to its laws are United States citizens,” Sotomayor stated.

She observed that the Trump administration departed from its typical approach of seeking nationwide implementation of the citizenship restrictions. “Why? The answer is obvious: To get such relief, the Government would have to show that the Order is likely constitutional, an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text, history, this Court’s precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice,” Sotomayor explained.

Sotomayor referenced an 1865 dictionary to clarify what being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means. “To be ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States means simply to be bound to its authority and its laws,” she wrote, citing the American Dictionary of the English Language’s definition of “jurisdiction” as “power of governing or legislating” or “the power or right of exercising authority.”

She characterized the legal question as straightforward. “Few constitutional questions can be answered by resort to the text of the Constitution alone, but this is one. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship,” Sotomayor wrote.

However, only the three liberal justices supported her position. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who penned the majority opinion restricting nationwide injunctions, emphasized the narrow scope of the previous case.

“The principal dissent’s analysis of the Executive Order is premature because the birthright citizenship issue is not before us. And because the birthright citizenship issue is not before us, we take no position on whether the dissent’s analysis is right,” Barrett stated.

U.S. District Judge Joseph N. LaPlante in New Hampshire, whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing, concluded in July that “The Executive Order likely violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution” and federal statutes. LaPlante extended his ruling to cover all children nationwide born to mothers present in the United States illegally or temporarily. Refusing citizenship to these children, LaPlante noted, “would render the children either undocumented noncitizens or stateless entirely. … The children would risk deportation to countries they have never visited.”

The following month, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, maintained her original decision favoring immigrant advocacy organizations challenging the order. “The Court reaffirms here its prior finding that ‘the Executive Order flouts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent, and runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth.’ The plaintiffs are extremely likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Executive Order is unconstitutional,” Boardman determined.

“Perhaps the Executive Branch, recognizing that it could not change the Constitution, phrased its Executive Order in terms of a strained and novel interpretation of the Constitution. The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,” wrote Judge Ronald Gould of the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in July, with Judge Michael Daly Hawkins concurring. Their case involved multiple state plaintiffs.

Gould argued the executive order misinterprets American history. “The Defendants’ proposed interpretation of the Citizenship Clause relies on a network of inferences that are unmoored from the accepted legal principles of 1868. … The Executive Order attempts to qualify and limit the plain language of the Constitution’s citizenship clause, which by its terms only says that a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen, by adding the notion that the person must be a child of a citizen or lawful permanent resident. … We reject this approach because it is contrary to the express language of the Citizenship Clause, the reasoning of Wong Kim Ark, Executive Branch practice for the past 125 years, the legislative history to the extent that should be considered, and because it is contrary to justice,” he explained.

Judge Patrick Bumatay disagreed, stating he would have dismissed the lower court’s decision because he questioned whether the challenging states had legal standing to sue. Bumatay avoided commenting on Trump’s order’s ultimate constitutionality.

Judge David Barron of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in Boston authored a comprehensive 100-page opinion for a unanimous three-judge panel in October. “But the length of our analysis should not be mistaken for a sign that the fundamental question that these cases raise about the scope of birthright citizenship is a difficult one,” Barron explained. “It is not, which may explain why it has been more than a century since a branch of our government has made as concerted an effort as the Executive Branch now makes to deny Americans their birthright.”

Referencing the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to Black Americans and prompted the 14th Amendment’s adoption, Barron observed, “Our nation’s history of efforts to restrict birthright citizenship … has not been a proud one.”

“The ‘lessons of history’ thus give us every reason to be wary of now blessing this most recent effort to break with our established tradition of recognizing birthright citizenship and to make citizenship depend on the actions of one’s parents rather than — in all but the rarest of circumstances — the simple fact of being born in the United States. Nor does the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, which countermanded our most infamous attempt to break with that tradition, permit us to bless this effort, any more than does the Supreme Court’s interpretation of that amendment in Wong Kim Ark, the many related precedents that have followed it, or Congress’s 1952 statute writing that amendment’s words in the U.S. Code,” he concluded.

ROME, Ga. — For nearly thirty years living in Georgia’s staunchly conservative northwest region, Kimberly Seals kept her progressive views private. She believed others shared her perspective but had no confirmation until recently.

Her assumptions changed when she witnessed hundreds gathering in Rome on a Saturday to listen to Pete Buttigieg campaign for Democratic congressional hopeful Shawn Harris.

“There’s a lot more people that think like us than we anticipated,” Seals remarked while standing with her husband.

Harris, who combines farming with military service as a retired Army general, seeks to claim the seat vacated by controversial conservative Marjorie Taylor Greene following her January resignation amid tensions with President Donald Trump. His opponent in the April 7 runoff is Clay Fuller, a Republican district attorney, in what appears to be an uphill battle.

Despite the challenging odds, Democrats maintain optimism as early voting starts Monday, buoyed by their party’s stronger-than-predicted performance in recent special elections before November’s midterm contests that will decide congressional control.

“I believe that there is no such thing as a permanently red district or state or town,” stated Buttigieg, who leads President Joe Biden’s transportation department. The former South Bend, Indiana mayor and previous presidential candidate told reporters afterward that “things really are shifting in this country.”

Harris is putting that theory to the test in his second bid for Georgia’s 14th District, hoping that national Democratic momentum and growing Trump skepticism might help overcome the political odds.

Dressed casually in denim and worn orange sneakers recently, Harris walked through a south Rome neighborhood, connecting with voters who immediately recognized him.

Sixty-nine-year-old Phoebe Johnson noted this marked her third encounter with Harris during his door-to-door visits. She praised him for “actually talking about the things that really matters,” including grocery inflation and the economic impact of the Republican president’s trade policies.

Harris explained that unlike his 2024 loss to Greene, more residents now know him personally as Shawn rather than formally as General Harris. His four-decade military career included leading infantry units in Afghanistan before retiring as a brigadier general from the Army National Guard. He currently operates a cattle ranch in Rockmart.

“I went right back to work with my hands and built a cattle farm that I live on every day,” Harris explained. “That says to the hardworking people here in northwest Georgia that Shawn Harris works hard just like them out in the hot sun and I get the results.”

He recalled how Republican veterans who initially helped construct fencing on his property encouraged his political run before learning his party affiliation.

Harris emphasized how his agricultural and military experience connects with blue-collar constituents.

Seventy-six-year-old Odell Battle expressed support, saying Harris “stands for the kind of lifestyle that I like and enjoy.”

“This man is here to serve the community,” Battle added after Harris provided his personal phone number. “It’s not just to get into Washington and forget about us.”

Harris topped the March 10 primary ballot, though while he emerged as the prominent Democrat, Republican votes were divided among multiple contenders. Political analysts from both parties warn against drawing broad conclusions from special elections with limited participation.

“It’s just too solid a red district,” observed conservative analyst and former state Representative Buzz Brockway. “But it might be closer than it should.”

Jay Morgan, who previously led the Georgia Republican Party, suggested the district could become even more conservative, describing Fuller as ideal candidate material.

“You have a guy who’s a stand-up law enforcement guy who is an extremely attractive candidate,” Morgan said. “To have somebody like that follow Marjorie Taylor Greene is just a huge boost for the party.”

Many Republicans felt relieved that Fuller advanced to the runoff instead of former state Senator Colton Moore, a more combative far-right contender whose approach resembled Greene’s style.

“The people of Northwest Georgia stand with President Trump and Clay Fuller,” declared Fuller campaign manager Dabriel Graham.

Floyd County Democratic Chair Vincent Mendes, who works as a chiropractor, reports that several of his Republican clients are contemplating Harris votes. He believes Harris has a legitimate chance because residents are “tired of being a talking point.”

“We’re ready for real representation,” Mendes stated. “We had somebody who was mostly interested in chasing headlines for years.”

Georgia Democratic Party Chair Charlie Bailey anticipates this enthusiasm will benefit candidates statewide during the midterms, particularly as Republicans target Senator Jon Ossoff’s seat.

“This race is critical for Georgia’s 14th District, but it’s even bigger than that,” Bailey said. “Shawn is building momentum right now that will keep growing all the way through November, boosting Democrats at every level of the ticket in North Georgia and beyond.”

WASHINGTON — An immigrant mother from Argentina made securing her newborn son’s U.S. passport a top priority after his birth in Florida last year, viewing the document as proof of his American citizenship.

Now, that 28-year-old woman finds herself at the center of a constitutional battle over President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to strip citizenship rights from children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country without authorization or on temporary status.

“It’s funny because I actually booked him for his passport application appointment even before he was born,” the woman told reporters, speaking anonymously at her attorneys’ request due to concerns about potential government retaliation. Her 7-month-old son slept peacefully during the interview.

“I would say that I am definitely relieved that at least he is protected,” she added.

The nation’s highest court heard oral arguments Wednesday regarding Trump’s January 20 executive order, which challenges long-established interpretations of the 14th Amendment and federal legislation dating back 86 years. The constitutional provision and accompanying laws have traditionally granted citizenship to virtually all individuals born within U.S. borders, with limited exceptions for children of diplomatic personnel and enemy forces.

Federal courts across the country have unanimously declared the executive order unconstitutional and blocked its implementation.

This citizenship challenge represents a key component of the Trump administration’s comprehensive immigration enforcement strategy, which encompasses increased deportation operations, significant cuts to refugee admissions, border asylum suspensions, and elimination of temporary protected status for individuals fleeing unstable conditions in their home countries.

The legal dispute centers on interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The administration’s argument focuses on the jurisdictional language, which appears in citizenship statutes from 1940 and 1952.

Trump’s position, outlined in his executive order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” and supported by certain conservative legal experts, contends that individuals present illegally or temporarily fall outside U.S. jurisdiction, therefore disqualifying their American-born children from citizenship.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the court should address “long-enduring misconceptions about the Constitution’s meaning.”

Sauer drew parallels between this case and pivotal Supreme Court decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, which ended school segregation in 1954, and the 2008 Heller ruling establishing individual gun ownership rights.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor previously characterized the administration’s defense as “an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text, history, this Court’s precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice.”

Sotomayor joined her fellow liberal justices in dissenting from a 6-3 conservative majority decision that used an earlier phase of this citizenship dispute to restrict federal judges’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

Legal advocates representing expectant mothers challenging the order, along with federal judges who have halted its enforcement, maintain the administration’s constitutional interpretation is fundamentally flawed.

“We have the president of the United States trying to radically reinterpret the definition of American citizenship,” stated Cecillia Wang, the American Civil Liberties Union’s legal director who argued against Sauer Wednesday.

Research conducted by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute indicates the executive order would impact over 250,000 babies born annually in the United States.

Although Trump’s public statements typically emphasize unauthorized immigration, the citizenship restrictions would also affect legal residents, including international students and green card applicants.

The Argentine woman interviewed arrived in America in 2016 on a student visa for college and has since filed for permanent residency.

She recalled experiencing anxiety after the court’s June decision, which raised the possibility that restrictions might be implemented, especially in states like Florida that hadn’t legally challenged Trump’s order. Subsequent lower court rulings maintained the injunction and established the current Supreme Court review.

Beyond typical new mother concerns, she explained, “I never thought that, you know, so close to the end of my pregnancy that I would have to be even thinking about … the executive order and how it would have impacted my baby.”

Despite the legal uncertainty, she remains committed to her American journey as her son began to wake.

“And so nothing that happens, politically or otherwise, would have changed my views of the country, I mean, because it gave me the most beautiful thing I have today, which is my family,” she concluded.

A federal judge in Washington will convene a hearing Monday morning to examine whether the Defense Department has ignored a court directive aimed at protecting journalist access to the Pentagon.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman has set the session for 9:30 a.m. EST to consider the New York Times’ motion demanding the Pentagon follow through with his earlier court decision.

Last October, under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s leadership, the Pentagon announced that reporters could face security risk designations and lose their press credentials if they attempted to obtain classified or certain unclassified materials from military personnel without proper authorization.

Among the 56 media organizations that make up the Pentagon Press Association, just one outlet agreed to sign off on acknowledging this policy. Reporters who refused to sign were forced to turn in their press passes to Pentagon officials.

Judge Friedman determined on March 20 that elements of the Defense Department’s credentialing policy infringed upon constitutional protections for news gathering activities and due process rights.

The judge then issued a court injunction demanding the immediate restoration of media credentials for Pentagon reporters.

However, the New York Times, serving as the primary plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging Hegseth’s policy, informed Friedman last week that the Pentagon had failed to follow his directive. Instead, the Times argued, the Defense Department introduced what it termed a new “interim” policy that contradicts the court’s decision.

According to the Times, this policy requires reporters with press passes to have escorts when entering the building, establishes guidelines dictating when journalists may grant source anonymity, and maintains other restrictions that the court order had previously struck down.

In Friday court documents, the Pentagon disputed claims that it violated Friedman’s previous ruling. “The Department was careful to address all of the legal defects that the court perceived in the prior policy,” Pentagon officials stated.

The Pentagon Press Association characterized the Defense Department’s updated regulations as “a clear violation of the letter and spirit” of Friedman’s decision. The association’s membership includes Reuters, the Times, ABC News, Fox News, and numerous other media organizations.

Air travel disruptions are ongoing at airports nationwide as the Transportation Security Administration operates without congressional funding approval.

The budget standoff has left the TSA in financial uncertainty, though President Trump has issued directives ensuring agency employees receive their wages during the funding gap.

Major aviation hubs across the country are experiencing continued operational delays as the situation remains unresolved on Capitol Hill.

President Donald Trump revealed divisions within his administration’s approach to Iran’s nuclear program during comments made aboard Air Force One on Sunday, describing Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard as taking a more lenient stance than his own.

When questioned by reporters about his confidence in Gabbard during his return flight from Mar-a-Lago in Florida, Trump responded with “yeah, sure,” before elaborating on their philosophical differences.

“She’s a little bit different in her thought process than me,” Trump explained while traveling back to Washington. “But that doesn’t make somebody not available to serve. I would say that I’m very strong on the fact that I don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon because if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it immediately. I think she’s probably a little bit softer on that issue, but that’s okay.”

The president’s remarks represent a rare public acknowledgment of disagreements among senior officials regarding the ongoing U.S.-Israeli operations against Iran, now in their second month.

Vice President JD Vance has advocated for a more restrained position on the conflict, while other prominent Republicans have privately expressed concerns about potential domestic economic and political ramifications.

The administration has delivered mixed signals concerning Iran’s nuclear capabilities and timeline. Prior to the current conflict, certain high-ranking officials warned that Iran was mere weeks from nuclear weapon development, while others, including Trump himself, claimed that previous U.S.-Israeli operations last summer had eliminated Iran’s weapons capabilities.

Iran continues to assert that its nuclear activities serve exclusively peaceful purposes.

Earlier this month, Gabbard, who previously served as a Democratic representative, informed Congress that U.S. intelligence agencies possessed “high confidence” in their knowledge of Iran’s highly enriched uranium storage locations. However, she refused to publicly discuss whether the United States possesses the capability to eliminate those stockpiles.

Joe Kent, who directed the National Counterterrorism Center and maintains close connections to Gabbard, stepped down from his position earlier this month in protest of the conflict, stating that Iran does not present an immediate danger to American interests.

President Donald Trump announced Sunday that construction of a new White House ballroom is moving faster than anticipated and remaining within financial projections, even as legal opposition continues to challenge the project.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One during his return flight to Washington from his Florida Mar-a-Lago estate Sunday evening, Trump displayed updated architectural drawings of the ballroom while defending the controversial construction. “We’re doing very well, so we’re ahead of schedule,” the president stated.

The construction project has encountered both legal and political opposition, including litigation filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The organization claims the administration failed to follow proper review procedures and public consultation requirements. A federal judge is expected to rule by March’s end on whether to grant an injunction that would temporarily stop construction during the legal proceedings.

While no definitive completion timeline has been announced, White House officials have indicated the project will finish “long before the end” of Trump’s presidential term.

During Sunday’s discussion, Trump characterized the ballroom as a “shed” that will sit above an extensive underground military facility. He explained that the structure will feature “high-grade, bullet-proof” windows and a roof designed to withstand drone attacks.

“Unfortunately we’re living in an age where that is a good thing,” Trump remarked.

The president has previously stated that the entire $400 million ballroom construction will be financed through private contributions, positioning it as part of his broader initiative to transform Washington.

WASHINGTON (TV Delmarva) — While traveling aboard Air Force One Sunday evening, President Donald Trump told reporters he sees no issue with allowing a Russian oil tanker to deliver fuel to Cuba, despite the United States maintaining strict economic sanctions against the Caribbean nation.

Speaking to the press during his return flight to Washington, Trump stated: “We have a tanker out there. We don’t mind having somebody get a boatload because they need… they have to survive.”

The president confirmed reports from The New York Times regarding the oil delivery, telling journalists: “I told them, if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem whether it’s Russia or not.”

Maritime tracking information indicates the tanker, named Anatoly Kolodkin, was positioned near Cuba’s eastern coastline Sunday night with approximately 730,000 barrels of crude oil aboard. The vessel is scheduled to dock in Matanzas by Tuesday, according to reports from Cuban government media outlets.

The Anatoly Kolodkin faces sanctions from the United States, European Union, and United Kingdom due to Russia’s conflict in Ukraine.

Under Trump’s administration, Cuba has faced the most severe economic pressure from Washington in decades, with policies designed to isolate the communist government and force political change. These measures have severely impacted ordinary Cubans, creating widespread hardship among the population Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio claim they aim to assist.

The oil embargo has triggered widespread power outages across Cuba, compounding existing economic difficulties. Fuel shortages have disrupted hospital operations and eliminated much of the public transportation system, while citizens struggle to access essential supplies.

Energy specialists estimate the incoming oil shipment could yield roughly 180,000 barrels of diesel fuel, providing Cuba with enough supply to meet daily energy needs for approximately nine to ten days.

The situation reflects the ongoing geopolitical rivalry between Washington and Moscow over influence in Cuba, a dynamic that has persisted for generations. Trump rejected suggestions that permitting the oil delivery would benefit Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“It doesn’t help him. He loses one boatload of oil, that’s all it is. If he wants to do that, and if other countries want to do it, it doesn’t bother me much,” Trump explained. “It’s not going to have an impact. Cuba’s finished. They have a bad regime. They have very bad and corrupt leadership and whether or not they get a boat of oil, it’s not going to matter.”

The president added: “I’d prefer letting it in, whether it’s Russia or anybody else because the people need heat and cooling and all of the other things.”

The Senate Banking Committee may schedule a confirmation hearing for Federal Reserve chair nominee Kevin Warsh during the week of April 13th, according to a Sunday report from Punchbowl News that cited two sources with knowledge of the scheduling discussions.

Warsh’s nomination has faced political opposition in the Senate, causing delays in the confirmation process. Meanwhile, current Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell continues to serve in his position as President Donald Trump seeks a replacement who would be more willing to reduce interest rates at a faster pace.

The leadership uncertainty at the Federal Reserve comes at a challenging time, as inflation concerns have intensified due to rising oil prices following U.S.-supported military strikes against Iran and ongoing Middle East conflicts that have disrupted important shipping lanes.

Financial markets now show minimal expectations for interest rate reductions this year, as increased energy costs contribute to broader inflationary pressures and reduce opportunities for loosening monetary policy.

Military fighter jets intercepted a civilian aircraft Sunday afternoon after it entered restricted airspace surrounding former President Donald Trump’s Florida resort, according to the North American Aerospace Defense Command.

The incident occurred at approximately 1:15 p.m. Eastern Time when the civilian plane breached a Temporary Flight Restriction zone around the Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida. These airspace restrictions are routinely established whenever the former president is present at the location.

NORAD officials confirmed the aircraft was “safely escorted out of the area” following the intercept. Military pilots deployed warning flares during the operation, which may have been observed by residents in the surrounding area.

“During the intercept, NORAD aircraft dispensed flares, which may have been visible to the public,” defense officials stated. “The flares were used to draw attention from or communicate with the pilot,” and posed no danger to people on the ground, according to the command.

This marks another in a series of comparable airspace violations that NORAD has documented since Trump resumed the presidency last year. Military officials report that all previous incidents have been resolved peacefully without any security threats being identified.

A new border security initiative along the Texas-Mexico boundary is generating pushback from area residents as federal officials move forward with an extensive buoy system installation.

The Trump administration has launched the deployment of large floating barriers stretching 500 miles across the Rio Grande River, which serves as the international boundary between the United States and Mexico. The project receives its funding from the 2025 federal spending legislation.

Community members along the border are expressing dissatisfaction with the initiative, pointing to current immigration statistics that show unauthorized crossings have dropped to their lowest point in half a century. The timing of the expensive barrier installation has raised questions among locals about the necessity of such measures given the significant decline in illegal border activity.

Law enforcement officers in Los Angeles used tear gas and detained 74 individuals following a ‘No Kings’ demonstration that turned confrontational near a federal detention facility over the weekend.

The Los Angeles Police Department announced Sunday that the arrests occurred when demonstrators refused to comply with orders to leave the area after Saturday’s protest had concluded. An additional person was taken into custody for allegedly carrying what officers identified as a dagger.

These detentions marked a notable exception to what organizers described as largely peaceful demonstrations, with more than 3,100 registered events taking place across all 50 states.

According to a late Saturday statement from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, protesters who had gathered around the federal complex in downtown Los Angeles began hurling rocks, bottles, and chunks of broken concrete at law enforcement personnel.

The department reported that two officers suffered injuries of undetermined severity after being hit by concrete pieces and required medical treatment.

Andre Andrews Jr., a Navy veteran working as an independent journalist, documented the entire Los Angeles demonstration route. He described how authorities released tear gas canisters after protesters ignored dispersal commands. Andrews observed that some demonstrators equipped with protective shields and gas masks threw the canisters back at police from behind a fence surrounding the federal facility. He also witnessed individuals breaking concrete barriers into smaller fragments to use as projectiles against officers.

“Does it make L.A. look bad? No. They’re bad actors causing problems, for sure,” Andrews said. “The peaceful protest was good for the cause. You have the right to do that. But the other people, they were definitely causing problems.”

Among those detained were eight minors, according to police reports. Officers also arrested a woman who had dressed as the Statue of Liberty, who was seen smiling while speaking with the officer escorting her away.

Similar incidents occurred in Denver, where police declared an unlawful assembly and released smoke canisters after a small group blocked roadways and refused to move when requested. Eight individuals were arrested at the scene, with a ninth person detained later for allegedly throwing objects at officers.

The demonstrations stretched across the nation, from New York City with its nearly 8.5 million residents in a Democratic stronghold, to Driggs, a small eastern Idaho community of fewer than 2,000 people in a state where Trump secured 66% of votes in 2024. Minnesota hosted a prominent event on the State Capitol grounds in St. Paul, featuring Bruce Springsteen as the main performer in a show of opposition to Trump’s immigration enforcement policies.

International demonstrations took place in more than a dozen countries, according to Ezra Levin, co-executive director of Indivisible, the organization that coordinated these events.

Organizers estimate that previous No Kings rallies attracted over 5 million participants in June and 7 million in October. Levin projected that Saturday’s events drew at least 8 million people.

“It was powerful. It was historic. It was joyful. It was boisterous,” Levin said Sunday. “I’d say it went pretty well.”

Leading conservative voices gathered in the Dallas-Fort Worth area from March 25-28 for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, where discussions centered on President Trump’s policy priorities, border security measures, and ongoing Iranian tensions.

The four-day gathering in Grapevine, Texas, drew notable speakers including exiled Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, Steve Bannon, Matt Gaetz, Senator Ted Cruz, and various Trump administration officials. Despite President Trump’s absence, attendees emphasized his continued leadership role within the Republican Party.

Crown Prince Pahlavi received enthusiastic reception as he advocated for removing Iran’s current government and presented himself as a possible interim leader. Honoring Iranians who died during anti-government demonstrations, he envisioned a transformed Iran without nuclear weapons programs, terrorist activities, hostage situations, or regional intimidation tactics. Such a liberated nation could foster regional stability, create economic partnerships, and align with Western interests, he suggested.

Pahlavi commended President Trump’s approach toward Iran and encouraged America to maintain its current strategy, suggesting that 2026 might witness both America’s 250th anniversary and Iran’s transformation.

Conference attendees showed divided opinions regarding military engagement with Iran. Several speakers cautioned against intensifying the conflict, especially through deploying American ground forces. They expressed concerns about extended warfare potentially increasing domestic expenses and creating widespread regional chaos. Others stressed the importance of gaining public backing before deepening military involvement.

Border security discussions generated some of the most enthusiastic audience responses. Administration representatives stressed ongoing deportation operations and indicated no plans to reduce current enforcement strategies.

Trump administration officials also outlined efforts to restructure federal agencies, including dismissing staff members who participated in previous presidential investigations and expanding control over media oversight.

Senator Cruz outlined Republican legislative successes, citing significant tax reductions, enhanced border security funding, and boosted defense spending. He also mentioned policies removing taxes from tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits, plus expanded educational choice initiatives. Cruz emphasized religious foundations in American principles and free speech protections.

The conference’s traditional preference poll revealed Vice President JD Vance leading potential 2028 Republican presidential candidates, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio in second place. Organizers also showcased CPAC’s growing global reach, featuring conservative representatives from Europe, Latin America, and other regions.

TRAVELING ON AMTRAK’S CRESCENT — The beauty of watching dawn break over quiet countryside, interrupted only by the steady rhythm of train wheels, offers a peaceful contrast to modern travel chaos.

But this particular rail journey wasn’t chosen for scenic reasons — it was a response to political gridlock.

A budget standoff between Congress and then-President Donald Trump, centered on immigration enforcement and federal tactics in American cities, had disrupted one of modern life’s basic assumptions: reliable air travel.

At Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport — famously promoted as the globe’s busiest — the situation had deteriorated into controlled pandemonium. Federal workers going without pay were staying home, leaving skeleton security crews to handle frustrated passengers facing multi-hour delays. Needing to reach Washington for March Madness basketball games, the traveler opted for certainty over speed, booking an overnight train journey spanning 650 miles.

During this tense period in American politics, the slower pace provided time to reflect on conveniences typically taken for granted. Few people consider the marvel of aviation that enables our fast-paced modern lifestyle — we simply purchase tickets and board. It’s even less common to contemplate the inconvenience when that system fails.

This choice represented a step backward in time, to the 1800s and another transformative invention: cross-country rail service.

The 14½-hour weekend rail trip provided ample opportunity to recognize how thoroughly politics, economics, social tensions, and debates over identity and inclusion have always shaped our daily routines, including our transportation choices across America. Amtrak’s Crescent route also revealed the diversity of our shared national experience.

The journey crossed urban centers, suburbs, and rural communities along the Eastern Seaboard. Fellow passengers shared their own travel stories, creating a picture of Americans — both historical and contemporary — who refuse to remain as immobilized as their political representatives.

Late-night train stations lack any sense of glamour. Exhausted parents manage children well past their bedtimes. Elderly passengers wrestle with heavy bags and challenging staircases.

Airports aren’t exactly glamorous either, naturally. However, Delta’s Atlanta-to-Washington route carries a certain prestige. These flights normally require about two hours from departure to arrival. They’re frequently assigned to central gates in the concourse closest to the main terminal — likely accommodating Congress members who rely on this route but have lost airline privileges during the extended government closure.

Under typical conditions, travel from doorstep to Capitol Hill or downtown Washington takes as little as 4½ hours. Current security delays could easily double that air travel duration.

Train travel takes longer, and conventional wisdom says time equals money. However, predictability also holds value, even with an 11:29 p.m. departure. At the train station, there were no motionless queues, no TSA personnel, no immigration agents serving as substitutes.

Travelers arriving just minutes before departure successfully boarded and located seats immediately — assigned by boarding sequence rather than predetermined zones that create crowded aisles. There’s no meal service or satellite television. But even standard coach seating, Amtrak’s basic option, offers as much space as airline first-class accommodations — plus Wi-Fi connectivity, so it’s not entirely antiquated.

During the trip, one crew member joked, “I’m no TSA agent.”

Growing up in rural Alabama, the author remembered counting train cars and imagining their destinations. Family records later revealed diary entries and correspondence from his grandmother and her sisters describing World War II-era weekend excursions to Atlanta.

The South’s major metropolis carries historical significance as well. Initially called “Terminus,” Atlanta emerged before the Civil War as a crucial junction where north-south and east-west railroad lines intersected. This strategic importance attracted General William Tecumseh Sherman for one of the Civil War’s pivotal campaigns that contributed to Confederate defeat.

A hundred years after the Civil War ended, Delta Airlines selected Atlanta for its corporate headquarters instead of Birmingham, Alabama, which was the larger metropolitan area according to 1960 census data. The company’s choice involved tax incentives for the airline, which took its name from its origins as a crop-dusting operation in the Mississippi Delta. Some analysts suggest Delta’s decision was influenced by the more blatant racism displayed by Alabama and Birmingham officials defending Jim Crow laws — regulations that included segregating passenger trains that preceded Amtrak.

On this evening, multiple languages and regional accents could be heard, particularly meaningful considering immigrant workers’ role in constructing America’s rail network and especially relevant given immigration’s current prominence in Washington policy debates. The passenger mix reflected American diversity, quite different from what previous generations would have encountered decades earlier.

This variety of voices praised rail travel’s convenience and accessibility. Agatha Grimes and her companions, who boarded in Greensboro, North Carolina, during a long weekend celebrating her 62nd birthday, shared this sentiment.

“I got stuck in the Atlanta airport last week,” Grimes explained, while her group shared laughs in the dining car. “It’s just nuts.”

Beretta Nunnally, describing herself as a “train veteran” who planned their journey, added, “There’s no worry about parking. No checking bags. You come to the station, you get where you going, and you come home.”

However, such convenience isn’t as accessible in America as it once was.

The same political and economic forces and government subsidies that expanded U.S. railroads later weakened the network as automobile manufacturers, petroleum companies, highway construction firms, and eventually aircraft manufacturers and airlines gained political influence and consumer preference.

Traveling for hours through rural regions, the author observed salvage yards where invasive vines and chain-link barriers surrounded rows of corroded vehicles. Farmland and agricultural machinery that help sustain cities and the broader nation were visible. Dawn revealed Charlotte, North Carolina’s illuminated office buildings and NFL stadium. Thriving county centers appeared — bringing to mind countless similar communities that struggle economically, isolated from passenger rail service and distant from the Interstate Highway System that the train crossed repeatedly.

In each location, voters across the political spectrum — conservatives, progressives, extremists, and moderates — have elected the representatives, senators, and president who now guide the nation’s direction.

Upon reaching Washington, the traveler paused to admire Union Station’s magnificent main hall and its classical architectural beauty, while regretting how much grandeur has been lost through the demolition of many impressive American terminals. Stepping outside, the Capitol dome came into view.

During the overnight journey, the Senate had reached a bipartisan agreement to fund the entire Department of Homeland Security except immigration enforcement operations. As the story continued developing, House Republican leadership rejected the proposal. The political deadlock persisted.

Though tired from travel, the author felt reinvigorated as a citizen. There was a basketball game to attend. And the train continued its journey.

The Treasury Department announced Thursday that President Donald Trump’s signature will be featured on future American currency, representing a departure from decades-old traditions surrounding U.S. banknote design and placing the current president’s personal signature on one of America’s most iconic symbols.

This modification will affect upcoming currency production rather than bills currently being used by the public. Government representatives characterized the decision as a ceremonial enhancement connected to presidential economic authority, although the announcement is already facing questions about mixing national financial institutions with current political figures.

Treasury officials released a statement describing the decision as representing “a new chapter in American economic leadership.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explained that the modification “recognizes the leadership role of the president in shaping the nation’s economic direction.”

Throughout American history, paper money has traditionally displayed signatures from the Treasury Secretary and the Treasurer of the United States, excluding presidential signatures. This established format has maintained the principle that U.S. currency symbolizes governmental institutions and the nation itself, rather than bearing the individual mark of whoever currently holds the presidency.

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing will handle the redesign process and technical modifications required to add President Trump’s signature to upcoming banknotes. Treasury representatives indicated the implementation will occur progressively during standard manufacturing schedules, ensuring that current bills remain valid currency and stay in public use.

This decision is notable since modifications to American currency typically result from anti-fraud improvements, enhanced security measures, accessibility enhancements, or periodic aesthetic updates—rather than incorporating the personal signature of the current president.

Treasury officials have not announced a specific timeline for when the initial currency featuring President Trump’s signature will become available to the public.

Thousands of demonstrators participated in ‘No Kings’ movement rallies nationwide on Saturday, March 28, 2026, with a primary gathering held in St. Paul, Minnesota, where participants voiced opposition to President Donald Trump’s administration, increasing cost of living, and ongoing conflict with Iran. Questions have emerged regarding the financial backing behind these demonstrations.

Movement organizers characterize their efforts as a grassroots, leaderless initiative built on democratic principles and coordinated through an alliance of 300 organizations emphasizing community-level activism. The rallying cry ‘We the People’ has become central to the movement’s grassroots messaging, building on momentum from large-scale demonstrations held throughout 2025.

However, a Fox News Digital investigation revealed the rallies are orchestrated by an extensive network of approximately 500 organizations with a collective annual budget estimated at $3 billion. According to the investigation, this network includes communist organizations that plan to leverage the demonstrations to promote calls for ‘revolution.’

Documentation filed for permits for the primary St. Paul march identifies Indivisible, a national Democratic advocacy organization backed by billionaire George Soros, as the primary organizer. The investigation also highlighted participation from a coalition of socialist and communist organizations funded by Neville Roy Singham, an American technology entrepreneur characterized as a committed communist residing in China.

The investigation indicates that Singham has dedicated nearly ten years to supporting activist organizations that champion revolutionary socialist ideology and regularly coordinate public demonstrations. These organizations encompass the People’s Forum in New York, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the ANSWER Coalition, and CodePink, whose co-founder Jodie Evans is Singham’s spouse, alongside partnerships with the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. All are recruiting participants, with at least one organization declaring its intention to deliver a message of ‘revolution’ during the protests.

Following demonstrations last October related to opposition against National Guard deployments and immigration enforcement actions, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, cautioned Republicans to regard the movement as a serious threat. During a Fox News appearance with Sean Hannity, Cruz stated there is substantial evidence indicating Soros and connected networks are providing financial support for the demonstrations, expressing concerns about possible civil unrest.

In a Bloomberg interview during that same month, Cruz stated, ‘Unquestionably, we should take political peril seriously. There is a lot of energy. There is a lot of anger on the left. And elections can be dangerous when one side is mobilized, is angry.’

In July, Cruz proposed the Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots (STOP FUNDERs) Act, legislation that would enable the Department of Justice to file Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges against individuals alleged to be financing protests classified as violent or extremist.

Thousands of demonstrators participated in coordinated ‘No Kings’ rallies nationwide over the weekend, gathering at numerous locations to express their opposition to the Trump administration’s policies.

The widespread demonstrations took place at thousands of venues across multiple states, drawing participants who came together to voice their political concerns and grievances against the current administration.

A high-ranking official from the union that represents Transportation Security Administration workers recently participated in an interview addressing key concerns facing federal airport security personnel.

Johnny Jones, who serves in a leadership role with the American Federation of Government Employees union, spoke with a national radio correspondent about two major issues impacting TSA staff members.

The conversation focused on the preparation and education that airport security agents receive before beginning their duties, as well as the significant pressure these federal employees experience when government operations are suspended due to funding disputes.

The interview comes amid ongoing discussions about the challenges facing TSA workers, who play a critical role in maintaining airport security across the nation while often dealing with difficult working conditions and uncertain employment situations during political standoffs in Washington.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will encounter recognizable figures Tuesday when justices hear arguments in another Mississippi death penalty case centered on allegations of racial discrimination during jury selection.

The case involves Terry Pitchford, a Black man on death row, and features Doug Evans, the former prosecutor who has a documented pattern of excluding Black jurors from capital cases. During Pitchford’s trial, Evans eliminated all but one African American from the jury panel.

Presiding Judge Joseph Loper permitted these jury dismissals to proceed. The Mississippi Supreme Court later affirmed the conviction.

This scenario mirrors events from seven years earlier involving identical participants — the same prosecutor, judge, and state supreme court. In that instance, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Curtis Flowers’ death sentence and conviction after Justice Brett Kavanaugh characterized Evans’ conduct as a “relentless, determined effort to rid the jury of Black individuals.”

Seven current justices participated in the Flowers decision.

While the Supreme Court has generally been skeptical of death row appeals in recent years, particularly last-minute execution challenges, the justices agreed in December to review Pitchford’s case focusing on racial discrimination claims that have previously resonated with some conservative members.

Pitchford received a death sentence for his involvement in the 2004 murder of Reuben Britt, who owned Crossroads Grocery near Grenada in northern Mississippi. Pitchford was 18 when he and an accomplice attempted to rob the store. The accomplice fired three fatal shots at Britt but avoided the death penalty due to being under 18. Pitchford, now 40, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.

After two decades of legal proceedings, U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills reversed Pitchford’s conviction in 2023, determining that the trial judge failed to provide adequate opportunity for defense attorneys to challenge the prosecution’s improper dismissal of Black jurors.

Mills indicated his decision was influenced partly by Evans’ conduct in previous cases. However, a unanimous three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Mills’ ruling.

During jury selection, attorneys may dismiss potential jurors based on concerns they might vote unfavorably for their client.

The Supreme Court addressed discrimination in jury composition through its 1986 Batson v. Kentucky decision, prohibiting the exclusion of jurors based on race and establishing procedures for trial judges to assess discrimination claims and prosecutors’ race-neutral justifications.

In Pitchford’s situation, prosecutors dismissed four of five remaining Black individuals from the jury pool, prompting defense objections. Judge Loper accepted all four explanations without analyzing whether racial bias motivated the decisions, according to Mills’ findings.

The current Supreme Court case centers on whether Pitchford’s attorneys adequately objected to Loper’s decisions and whether the state Supreme Court reasonably concluded they had not.

Joseph Perkovich, representing Pitchford in Tuesday’s arguments, maintains the case record clearly supports his client. Loper “did not grasp he had to a constitutional duty to determine whether the reasons the district attorney gave for striking the Black citizens were credible and truthful,” Perkovich stated via email. “The judge simply failed even to try to discharge that critical duty, despite the defense’s efforts.”

In state filings, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch defended the state Supreme Court’s decision and argued Evans did not improperly exclude Black jurors.

Pitchford’s attorneys contend he should be freed or retried if the Supreme Court rules in his favor. Mississippi argues the case should return to the state Supreme Court for review of discrimination claims regarding jury selection.

Flowers endured six trials for the shooting deaths of four individuals. He was released in 2019, and prosecutors dropped charges the following year after Evans transferred the case to state officials. Evans retired in 2023.

Mills noted that while the Flowers case alone doesn’t establish a pattern, the Mississippi Supreme Court should have considered this history when reviewing Pitchford’s appeal.

“The court merely believes that it should have been included in a ‘totality of the circumstances’ analysis of the issue,” Mills concluded.

The nation’s highest court is preparing to examine the constitutional rule that provides automatic citizenship to children born on American soil. Educational leaders are closely monitoring how this upcoming ruling might affect various aspects of the school system.

The justices will review the longstanding provision that has guaranteed citizenship from birth for all children delivered within U.S. borders. School administrators and policy experts are evaluating the potential consequences this decision could have on student enrollment, educational services, and classroom access across the country.