Category: Politics

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia — James Comey, who previously served as FBI Director, made his way to a federal courthouse in Virginia Wednesday, one day following criminal charges filed against him for what authorities describe as threatening President Donald Trump through social media.

The former law enforcement chief surrendered on two criminal counts: threatening a president’s life and sending threatening communications across state boundaries. During his brief courtroom appearance, Comey remained silent while his legal representative, Patrick Fitzgerald, indicated plans to challenge what he termed vindictive prosecution designed to retaliate against his client’s constitutional rights.

Federal Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick from Virginia’s Eastern District allowed Comey’s release without imposing restrictions. The case will move to North Carolina, where a federal grand jury issued the charges Tuesday. Family members of Comey arrived at the courthouse before proceedings commenced.

Comey maintains his innocence and plans to contest the allegations through legal channels.

These charges represent continued legal pressure from Trump’s Justice Department against Comey, who faced unsuccessful prosecution previously in an unrelated matter. This development reflects an intensified effort to pursue criminal cases against individuals viewed as Trump’s political opponents. Trump specifically named Comey in social media posts last year demanding criminal prosecution of his rivals.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Comey remained attentive as Judge Fitzpatrick announced the charges, which could result in up to five years imprisonment.

CONTROVERSIAL SOCIAL MEDIA POST

The criminal allegations center on Comey’s Instagram post from last May displaying seashells positioned on sand to create “86 47.”

Restaurant industry slang uses “86” to mean removing or ejecting someone, while “47” potentially references Trump as America’s 47th president.

Federal prosecutors contend any reasonable person receiving this message would understand it as threatening Trump.

Speaking to media Wednesday, Trump characterized “86” as a “mob term.”

“People think of it as something having to do with disappearing, but the mob uses that term to say when they want to kill somebody,” Trump told reporters at the White House.

When questioned about whether the post endangered his safety, Trump replied, “Probably. I don’t know.”

Comey removed the post quickly after publication, explaining he intended it as political commentary and didn’t realize the numbers could suggest violence.

This marks Comey’s second criminal case under Trump’s current administration, following a dismissed congressional perjury case.

ONGOING POLITICAL CONFLICT

Trump has consistently criticized Comey regarding his supervision of FBI investigations into alleged connections between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russian representatives.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has rapidly implemented Trump’s demands for criminal prosecutions. His predecessor, Pam Bondi, lost her position partly for insufficient progress on these cases.

Since Blanche assumed leadership this month, the Justice Department has filed charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center, restored firing squad and electrocution for federal executions, published criticism of previous anti-abortion activist prosecutions, and indicted an assistant to Dr. Anthony Fauci, former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, for allegedly hiding COVID-19 research documents.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS

Legal experts have broadly criticized Comey’s prosecution, arguing it violates First Amendment free speech protections. Supreme Court precedent establishes strict requirements for threat prosecutions, demanding proof defendants knew or should have understood their communications would be perceived as death or injury threats.

“It is shocking that this indictment was even brought, and there really is no explanation for it other than it is part of a retaliatory campaign against Comey,” said Thomas Berry, a constitutional lawyer at the libertarian Cato Institute. “There is no chance he will ever be convicted.”

Blanche refused Tuesday to reveal prosecutorial evidence against Comey but indicated the government would demonstrate intent through documents, witness statements, and Comey’s behavior.

Legal scholars highlighted Comey’s own disclaimers about the post following controversy and the unclear meaning of “86” in this situation. First Amendment protections extend to political expression using violent or threatening language.

“The bar is high because under the First Amendment, we don’t criminalize speech. Words are not crimes, except under a very limited number of circumstances,” said Jared Carter, a professor with the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic.

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth returns to Capitol Hill Thursday for another round of intense questioning from lawmakers, as senators prepare to challenge or defend his management of the ongoing Iran conflict.

The Defense Secretary endured nearly six hours of contentious questioning Wednesday before the House Armed Services Committee, where both Democratic and Republican lawmakers pressed him on the financial burden of the war, casualty figures, and depleting supplies of essential military equipment.

Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Committee session will include discussion of the Trump administration’s proposed 2027 defense budget, seeking to increase military spending to an unprecedented $1.5 trillion. Hegseth will appear alongside Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine to advocate for expanded drone capabilities, enhanced missile defense infrastructure, and additional naval vessels.

In other developments, a federal appeals court Wednesday declined to reconsider an $83 million defamation judgment against President Trump involving magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hold an “en banc” hearing months after Trump challenged a separate $5 million verdict in favor of Carroll at the Supreme Court level.

Carroll’s legal representative, Roberta Kaplan, expressed her client’s desire to conclude the litigation that began in 2019. “She is eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice,” Kaplan stated.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats criticized the Trump administration’s environmental policies during Wednesday hearings, condemning proposed cuts that would slash the EPA’s budget by half. Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the reductions during his third budget hearing this week, having already overseen staff reductions to historically low levels.

Zeldin has dismantled major climate initiatives, advanced what he describes as America’s most significant deregulation effort, and terminated billions in Biden-era environmental justice funding to eliminate what he calls “EPA’s radical diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.”

Oil markets reacted sharply Thursday as Brent crude briefly exceeded $126 per barrel amid stalled U.S.-Iran negotiations. The uncertainty surrounding Strait of Hormuz reopening and potential war resolution drove June Brent crude up 3.3% to $121.90, while U.S. benchmark crude rose 1.3% to $108.28. Before the conflict began in late February, Brent traded around $70 per barrel.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell announced Wednesday his intention to remain on the Fed board following the end of his chairmanship next month, citing concerns about Trump administration attacks on central bank independence. “I worry these attacks are battering this institution and putting at risk the things that really matter to the public,” Powell said during a press conference after the Fed maintained current interest rates.

Powell’s decision to stay as a governor until potentially January 2028 prevents Trump from appointing another ally to the seven-member board. The Senate Banking Committee has already approved Trump nominee Kevin Warsh as Powell’s replacement on a party-line vote.

Returning to Thursday’s Senate hearing, Hegseth and Caine will likely face additional scrutiny regarding European troop deployments after President Trump threatened Wednesday to reduce U.S. military presence in Germany during his dispute with Chancellor Friedrich Merz over Iran war strategy.

WASHINGTON — When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed groundbreaking civil rights legislation in August 1965, he understood its historic importance and chose to hold the ceremony at the U.S. Capitol rather than the White House.

The signing took place on August 6, 1965, just five months following the violent confrontation known as “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Alabama, which had galvanized support for what became the Voting Rights Act.

For more than sixty years, this legislation has stood as one of America’s most influential laws, blocking discriminatory practices against minority voters and enabling the election of thousands of Black and Hispanic officials across all government levels.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a devastating blow to the law’s protections on Wednesday, dismantling another crucial component that had safeguarded against racial bias in voting and political representation. This latest ruling follows the court’s 2013 decision that already weakened other essential aspects of the legislation, subsequently triggering restrictive voting measures across multiple states. Civil rights organizations now express deep concern about the future impact on minority communities.

“It means that you have entire communities that can go without having representation,” said Cliff Albright, a co-founder of the group Black Voters Matter. “It is literally throwing us back to the Jim Crow era unapologetically, and that’s not exaggeration.”

Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Washington office, said the court’s steady work to erode the Voting Rights Act, culminating in Wednesday’s decision, amounted to “burying it without the funeral.”

The high court’s decision emerged from a Louisiana congressional redistricting dispute involving a newly drawn district that resulted in the state gaining its second Black congressional representative.

The court determined this map violated constitutional principles because racial considerations influenced the boundary drawing process. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion for the court’s conservative wing, arguing that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was intended solely to prevent deliberate discrimination.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan argued that requiring proof of intentional discrimination creates “an almost insurmountable barrier for challenges to any voting rights issues to prove discrimination.”

Legal experts specializing in voting rights warn this decision reduces the Voting Rights Act to a mere shadow of its former strength and opens pathways for political map-drawers across all levels of government — from school boards to state legislatures to Congress — to weaken minority political influence.

“We’re witnessing the evisceration of America’s greatest legislative landmark at the hands of a far right Supreme Court,” Democratic U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York said.

Maria Teresa Kumar, president of Voto Latino, said the decision will allow more aggressive “cracking and packing” of populations to dilute their votes, “not just in congressional districts but also in state legislatures, county commissions, school boards and city councils.”

The law’s transformative impact over the decades cannot be questioned, according to voting rights specialists.

Sherrilyn Ifill, a law professor at Howard University and the former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, noted that approximately 1,500 Black elected officials served nationwide in 1970, compared to more than 10,000 today.

“And it isn’t because of the goodness of people’s hearts,” she said.

This progress resulted directly from Black communities, civil rights activists and attorneys having legal mechanisms through the Voting Rights Act to challenge attempts to weaken Black and Hispanic voting power. The majority of Section 2 lawsuits have focused on representation in local government positions.

The impact extends beyond mere statistics.

Reduced representation, particularly in state legislatures and Congress, will result in minority communities losing influence on critical issues including healthcare, education and essential infrastructure improvements, according to Sophia Lin Lakin, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project.

“States can now point to partisan objectives to justify maps that strip voters of color of representation, and federal courts will have little basis to intervene,” she said.

Johnson’s historic legislation from 61 years ago underwent various amendments over time, but the most significant change occurred in 2013 with the Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder ruling. That decision effectively eliminated the provision requiring certain states and local jurisdictions to obtain federal approval before implementing voting-related changes.

This 2013 ruling enabled predominantly Republican states to enact numerous restrictive election laws, particularly following former President Donald Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread fraud in his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

In an unexpected 2023 ruling, the Supreme Court had upheld Section 2 in an Alabama redistricting case, but Wednesday’s decision essentially overturned that precedent.

The immediate concern now centers on the consequences for minority representatives and their constituents.

In Louisiana, the ruling places Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields in a precarious position. Fields has experienced redistricting challenges before, serving two terms in the 1990s before the state redrew his congressional district.

“I’ve been down this road before, you know, 33 years ago,” he said.

Shomari Figures, who secured the Alabama seat created following the court’s 2023 decision, explained that while the ruling doesn’t immediately affect Alabama’s current congressional districts, it significantly increases the difficulty of proving future racial discrimination in redistricting cases.

“It will lead to states, primarily in the South, launching immediate efforts to redraw districts in ways that will dilute the impact of Black voters and drastically reduce the number of realistic opportunities to elect Black members to Congress,” he said.

Shalela Dowdy, an Alabama resident who served as a plaintiff in the lawsuit that led to the creation of Figures’ district, expressed concern that the decision could result in rolling back the 2023 district, which provided Black voters with stronger representation.

“Putting it in the hands of the states on this level is dangerous,” Dowdy said. “There’s just been a history of the states not doing the right thing based off their state population.”

Fresh research from the Public Religion Research Institute reveals interesting demographic patterns in American attitudes toward abortion access. The survey discovered that women back legal abortion procedures at higher rates than men, with 63% of women supporting legality in most or all situations versus 59% of men.

Political party affiliation shows expected divisions on the issue, with Democratic voters expressing significantly more support for abortion access compared to Republican respondents. However, the research uncovered a surprising generational trend that defies typical assumptions about age and social issues.

Contrary to what many might expect, older Americans demonstrate stronger backing for maintaining legal abortion than their younger counterparts. The data shows 60% of Americans aged 65 and older favor keeping abortion procedures legal, representing higher support levels than found among younger age groups.

The historic Voting Rights Act of 1965, long considered the cornerstone achievement of America’s civil rights era, has been stripped of its final enforcement power by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts’ leadership, according to legal scholars.

In a Wednesday decision split along ideological lines 6-3, the Court’s conservative justices eliminated what academics describe as the final functioning component of the groundbreaking legislation that emerged from the violent “Bloody Sunday” confrontation in Selma, Alabama, designed to combat racial bias in electoral processes.

UCLA election law scholar Rick Hasen characterized the Roberts Court’s treatment of the Voting Rights Act as resembling “a wrecking ball.” He explained, “There are still parts of the VRA that are operative, but the two main pillars are now virtually dead letters.”

Wednesday’s decision targeted Section 2 of the law, overturning a Louisiana electoral district map that would have created a second congressional seat with a Black majority population. This ruling will significantly complicate efforts by minority communities to contest electoral boundaries they view as racially biased under the civil rights statute.

The timing coincides with approaching November congressional races, where former President Donald Trump’s Republican allies are working to retain their grip on both chambers of Congress. Trump praised the Court’s action and predicted Republican-controlled states would move to redesign their voting districts.

Former Justice Department attorney John Yoo, who worked during the George W. Bush administration, defended the decision as advancing the Court’s effort to guarantee governmental adherence to “a color-blind Constitution.”

Justice Elena Kagan authored a forceful opposition opinion, supported by her two liberal colleagues, describing the ruling as the “latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”

Kagan referenced a 2021 decision where the conservative majority upheld Republican-supported Arizona voting measures that a lower court determined would disproportionately impact Black, Latino and Native American voters.

She also pointed to Roberts’ 2013 opinion in the Shelby County v. Holder case from Alabama, which eliminated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act – a requirement that states and localities with histories of racial discrimination obtain federal permission before altering voting procedures.

Kagan emphasized that Wednesday’s verdict “is part of a set,” adding that “For over a decade, this court has had its sights set on the Voting Rights Act.”

The Voting Rights Act originated following the crucial 1965 demonstration where hundreds of Black marchers attempted to cross Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge and encountered state police who attacked them with nightsticks.

Following the “Bloody Sunday” violence, President Lyndon Johnson urged Congress to enact voting rights protections. Legislators responded with the Voting Rights Act, which eliminated poll taxes, literacy requirements and other discriminatory practices that white officials had used to block Black citizens from voting.

Section 5 of the original law mandated that jurisdictions with discrimination histories receive federal clearance for voting law changes, establishing criteria to determine which areas faced this “preclearance” obligation.

The Supreme Court dismantled these safeguards in 2013 through a 5-4 conservative majority decision supporting Shelby County, Alabama officials. The justices ruled that Congress relied on obsolete information when continuing to require Alabama and eight additional states, primarily in the South, to seek federal permission for changes affecting minority voters.

While the decision allowed Congress to create new criteria for determining preclearance requirements, no such replacement emerged. Section 2 remained intact temporarily.

Congress modified Section 2 in 1982 to ban electoral maps that diminish minority voting influence, regardless of whether discriminatory intent could be proven directly.

For over forty years, plaintiffs could succeed in Section 2 cases by demonstrating that voting maps produced racially discriminatory outcomes under the “results test” standard.

However, Wednesday’s ruling essentially converted Section 2 into an “intent test,” according to legal experts.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Roberts and the four remaining conservative justices. The decision stated that Section 2 analysis must focus on the Constitution’s ban against deliberate racial discrimination found in the 15th Amendment.

Adopted in 1870 after the Civil War that abolished slavery, the 15th Amendment empowers Congress to create laws ensuring voting rights cannot be denied “on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”

Alito wrote that interpreting Section 2 to “outlaw a map solely because it fails to provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create a right that the amendment does not protect.”

Harvard Law Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos declared that Wednesday’s decision renders the results test “effectively dead.”

“It’s there in theory but now impossible to satisfy in fact,” explained Stephanopoulos, who submitted a legal brief supporting the Voting Rights Act in this case.

Press Robinson, a Louisiana resident and activist whose legal challenge initially created the second Black-majority district in his state, warned that the Supreme Court’s decision would impact government at every level nationwide. He expressed concern that elected Black officials would soon “disappear.”

“We’ll be back where we were at the time that slavery was declared illegal in this country,” Robinson told reporters during a conference call. “This country doesn’t seem to want to advance beyond that time.”

A cybersecurity policy organization led by CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is calling for import taxes on digital display components to reduce America’s military dependence on Chinese suppliers for these essential parts.

The Silverado Policy Accelerator released findings Thursday warning that China’s growing dominance in the display manufacturing sector poses serious national security concerns. Defense officials have expressed worry for years about China’s expanding control over display technology, which was previously dominated by American allies like Japan and South Korea.

In 2023, former President Trump enacted legislation requiring the Defense Department to develop a strategy by 2027 to eliminate dependence on China, Russia, and other adversaries for critical technologies.

The policy group’s research examined the supply chain beyond finished displays to focus on individual “cells” – semiconductor-like components that serve as the foundation for display panels. Their investigation revealed that most displays manufactured in nations like Mexico or Thailand depend on cells produced in China.

While premium smartphones sold in America currently utilize Korean-manufactured cells, the report projects that lower-cost Chinese cells could capture up to 75% of worldwide market share by 2028. This trend is already forcing manufacturing facilities in Japan and Taiwan to shut down.

“When we started looking at this, what we saw was another dashboard of flashing red emergency lights,” said Sarah Stewart, a former U.S. trade official who is CEO and executive director of the policy group. “We’ve seen this before in other sectors. We have really dangerous exposure here on some of these critical components that are powering our military, first responders, power plants and literally every piece of critical infrastructure.”

Although courts have overturned many of Trump’s broad-based tariffs, his administration continues developing focused tariffs under specific legal authorities.

The organization’s report suggests that display cells could fall under an existing “Section 301” investigation into unfair trade practices, potentially allowing tariffs on Chinese-made display cells in finished products.

“It gives a lot of flexibility to the executive branch to think about burden or restriction on U.S. commerce in quite a broad way,” Stewart said of the statute.

Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth is scheduled to appear before lawmakers for a second consecutive day of confirmation hearings following contentious discussions about Iran military policy during his initial testimony.

The hearings resume after Hegseth faced sharp questioning from congressional members regarding his positions on potential military action involving Iran, creating tension during what are typically more routine confirmation proceedings.

Meanwhile, attention in Washington also focuses on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s tenure and impact on monetary policy during his leadership of the central bank.

In a separate major development, the Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling that substantially weakens the Voting Rights Act, marking another pivotal decision affecting election law and voter access protections.

China has introduced sweeping new trade regulations this month that have sparked concern among American companies and trade experts, who warn these measures could significantly hamper U.S. efforts to decrease supply chain reliance on China.

The Trump administration’s response has been notably restrained, with U.S. officials avoiding public commentary on China’s latest move.

These regulations, unveiled just weeks before President Donald Trump’s scheduled May 14-15 meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, establish a legal framework for penalizing international companies that attempt to diversify their sourcing away from China.

The Trump administration has consistently encouraged American businesses to “derisk” by reducing their dependence on Chinese goods and regaining “sovereignty” in critical sectors such as essential minerals and pharmaceuticals. China’s new policies effectively pressure U.S. and other international companies in the opposite direction.

A U.S. official, speaking anonymously to Reuters, suggested that China’s timing in releasing these regulations before Trump’s visit to China indicates Beijing is gauging the White House’s commitment to maintaining the current pause in trade hostilities, which began early last year with U.S. tariff increases and Chinese counter-measures.

“It’s a clear attempt to stop derisking,” the official said.

Industry organizations have raised serious concerns about these Chinese regulations. The American Chamber of Commerce in China informed Reuters that China could reduce purchases from international companies with minimal repercussions, while foreign businesses might face scrutiny from Chinese officials for decreasing their dependence.

“Washington’s response so far has been silence. That risks signaling weakness,” said Craig Singleton, a China expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank.

With the summit drawing near, the administration seemed intent on avoiding public escalation, he noted.

White House spokesman Kush Desai avoided directly addressing Reuters’ inquiries about the measures, saying only that the Trump administration “will continue to leverage every bit of America’s economic might to safeguard our national and economic security.”

The Treasury Department and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not provide responses to Reuters’ requests for comment.

The Trump administration’s restraint regarding these new regulations, which many in American industry view as a warning shot, marks a shift from the trade confrontation that preceded Trump’s October meeting with Xi in South Korea.

In Busan, both nations eventually established an unstable trade cease-fire, though Trump had previously threatened to halt all U.S. software exports to China and impose 100% tariffs on Chinese products in response to Chinese restrictions on critical mineral exports.

China’s new policies specify that foreign entities taking actions “such as suspending normal transactions with our nation’s citizens or organizations,” face investigation and penalties.

While the regulations don’t specify particular industries for enforcement, they indicate Chinese agencies will create a “key sectors list” to protect “circulation of raw materials, technology, equipment” and other goods.

These measures could impact numerous companies across various sectors.

American pharmaceutical companies, for instance, have increasingly sought to relocate some manufacturing and sourcing to India and other nations with less geopolitical tension with Washington.

Under China’s new framework, such moves could be viewed as threats to China’s security, potentially resulting in companies facing investment restrictions, import or export prohibitions, and staff being barred from entering the country.

A second round of Chinese regulations released shortly afterward outlines penalties for foreign companies that comply with “unjustified extraterritorial jurisdiction,” Beijing’s description of U.S. sanctions and export restrictions.

Analysts and some U.S. officials express concern about the precedent established by Beijing’s measures.

“Left unaddressed, these new rules will normalize supply chain coercion and accelerate China’s development of other economic weapons to lock in corporate dependence and prevent supply chain shifts out of China,” FDD’s Singleton said.

Two U.S. industry sources informed Reuters that the Trump administration had received briefings from industry groups about the regulations and the new leverage they provide China.

The U.S. officials had been in “listening mode,” but provided no definitive position or objection, according to the sources, who requested anonymity to speak freely about their administration discussions.

“It’s almost like loading the gun without actually firing it,” one industry source described the Chinese rules, adding they believed it was improbable the U.S. would respond before the summit given the administration’s focus on “preserving strategic stability.”

Another U.S. business source noted that recognizing China’s new supply chain regulations would force the Trump administration to retaliate despite limited desire for escalation.

Reva Goujon, geopolitical strategist and director at Rhodium Group, said the measures are so comprehensive that U.S. negotiators could charge Beijing with “violating the spirit of Busan and basically the whole idea of trade and investment reciprocity.”

“China is clearly in a much more emboldened position,” Goujon said.

WASHINGTON — Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth returns to Capitol Hill Thursday for another round of intense questioning from lawmakers, this time appearing before senators who will have their first chance to challenge or support his management of the Iran conflict.

The Defense Secretary endured nearly six hours of heated exchanges with House Armed Services Committee members Wednesday, facing pointed criticism about the war’s financial burden, casualty toll, and impact on America’s weapons reserves.

Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Committee session will focus on the Trump administration’s proposed 2027 defense budget, which seeks a record-breaking $1.5 trillion in military spending. Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine plan to emphasize requirements for additional unmanned aircraft, missile defense capabilities, and naval vessels.

The officials will likely encounter difficult questions regarding U.S. forces stationed in Europe following President Trump’s Wednesday warning to NATO partner Germany, hinting at potential reductions in American military personnel as tensions rise with Chancellor Friedrich Merz over Iran policy.

Based on Wednesday’s proceedings, Republican senators may concentrate on military funding specifics while endorsing the Iranian operation. Democratic members are anticipated to demand clarity on conflict strategy during the current fragile ceasefire and challenge Hegseth’s dismissal of senior military commanders.

Democratic lawmakers characterize the conflict as an expensive optional war lacking proper congressional authorization or oversight. However, Congress has repeatedly failed to enact war powers measures requiring legislative approval for military operations.

Issues that legislators have sought to address since hostilities commenced February 28 received responses — or were dodged — during Wednesday’s session.

Pentagon officials revealed the conflict has consumed $25 billion thus far, primarily for ammunition and weapons. However, Hegseth declined to provide estimates on the war’s duration or potential additional expenses.

The Defense Secretary stated that a fatal attack on an Iranian elementary school resulting in over 165 deaths, including numerous children, remains under review. Associated Press reporting has indicated mounting evidence suggesting U.S. responsibility for the strike against a school located near a Revolutionary Guard facility.

Democratic Representative Pat Ryan questioned Hegseth about whether six American servicemembers killed in a Kuwait drone attack could have been saved. Hegseth avoided directly addressing the inquiry but emphasized military efforts to safeguard U.S. personnel.

During another heated moment, Hegseth informed Democratic Representative Adam Smith that Iranian nuclear installations were destroyed during U.S. attacks last June. This prompted Smith to challenge the Trump administration’s justification for initiating the Iranian war months later.

“We had to start this war, you just said 60 days ago, because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat,” said Smith, the committee’s top Democrat. “Now you’re saying that it was completely obliterated?”

Hegseth replied that Iranian officials “had not given up their nuclear ambitions” and maintained thousands of missiles.

Smith argued the conflict “left us at exactly the same place we were before.”

The Pentagon leader also addressed inquiries about removing Army’s senior uniformed leader, Gen. Randy George, among multiple high-ranking military officials dismissed since Trump’s return to the presidency.

Hegseth cited the need for “new leadership,” an explanation that didn’t satisfy Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. Chrissy Houlahan.

“You have no way of explaining why you fired one of the most decorated and remarkable men,” Houlahan started before Hegseth cut her off. “We needed new leadership,” he reiterated.

African American lawmakers on Capitol Hill are preparing for potentially devastating losses to their congressional representation following a Supreme Court decision that weakened critical voting rights protections for minority communities during redistricting processes.

The Wednesday Supreme Court ruling opens the door for states controlled by Republicans to redesign House districts without considering racial demographics, which could lead to significantly more conservative-leaning congressional seats nationwide.

Congressional Black Caucus Chair Rep. Yvette Clarke addressed media members, stating that caucus representatives and Democratic colleagues would resist the consequences of this judicial decision.

“The Supreme Court has opened the door to a coordinated attack on Black voters across the country,” Clarke stated. “This is an outright power grab.”

Previously, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act allowed voters to contest district maps that seemed to weaken minority communities’ power to choose their preferred candidates. Political experts anticipate that Republican-controlled states will launch widespread congressional redistricting efforts following Wednesday’s decision, particularly targeting the 2028 elections and future cycles, which will likely result in a significantly reduced Black Caucus membership.

More than twelve of the 60 Black Caucus members joined Clarke at the press conference, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Their reactions to the court’s decision varied from anger to determination to grief.

While the exact number of affected seats remains uncertain, redistricting specialists believe that over a dozen seats currently held by minorities could be eliminated.

Louisiana Rep. Troy Carter, one of two African American Democrats representing the state that was central to this case, described the decision as “a devastating blow to our democracy, plain and simple.”

Republican leadership across multiple Southern states has already begun discussing implementation strategies for the ruling to develop new conservative-friendly congressional maps. Florida Republicans quickly moved forward with approving a revised House map that included redrawing a district originally designed to elect African American representation.

“I would be surprised if we do not see former slave-holding states moving at lightning speed to target districts that provide Black voters and other voters of color an equal opportunity to elect candidates,” explained Kristen Clarke, NAACP general counsel and the first African American woman to serve as assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s civil rights division.

She noted uncertainty about whether state voting legislation or constitutional anti-discrimination provisions will offer any safeguards.

Republican officials and conservative African American leaders celebrated the decision as a win against race-based requirements. Project 21 Black Leadership Network’s Linda Lee Tarver released a statement saying civil rights legislation was never meant “to institutionalize racial line-drawing as a default feature of our political system.”

The Congressional Black Caucus originated in 1971 during court-mandated redistricting under the Voting Rights Act, which had been enacted six years prior, resulting in increased minority congressional representation.

African American House representation grew from nine to thirteen members. Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman in Congress, chose to expand the Democracy Select Committee established in the 1960s by Democratic Rep. Charles Diggs into the more structured Congressional Black Caucus.

The CBC gained national attention during its inaugural year by boycotting President Richard Nixon’s State of the Union speech after he declined to meet with the organization. Nixon later agreed to the meeting. The organization developed more than 60 policy recommendations to benefit the African American community, including fighting racism and improving housing access. This earned them recognition as the “conscience of the Congress.”

“That caucus has had such an important voice in American politics — the things that we’ve been able to achieve together, the creation of equity and access,” Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock said during a Wednesday press conference. “And I’m afraid that with this ruling, we could see that caucus shrink in a hugely significant way.”

New Orleans resident Thomas Johnson expressed frustration about the ruling while visiting Louisiana’s Capitol in Baton Rouge. Johnson, who is African American and represented by Carter, worries that Republicans might redesign the state’s congressional boundaries to eliminate predominantly Black districts.

“I feel like this is an embarrassing attack upon the minorities, particularly the Black community,” Johnson said. “We have very little (voice) in Congress.”

Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright, who advises the Black Caucus, predicts the organization will engage in numerous legal battles defending members whose districts face targeting after the Supreme Court ruling. He emphasized that the decision makes voter mobilization efforts even more critical “if we want to change course on some of the things that are likely to happen because of this decision.”

Alabama Democratic Rep. Terri Sewell, whose state was involved in a significant Voting Rights Act case that favored Black representation nearly three years ago, emphasized that the party must now concentrate on energizing voters before this year’s midterm elections.

“Now more than ever, we need communities across this nation to mobilize — in state legislatures, in the courts and at the ballot box,” Sewell said. “We need to vote like we’ve never voted before.”

Louisiana’s Republican Governor Jeff Landry has informed GOP House candidates that he intends to postpone the upcoming primary elections scheduled for May 16, according to a Washington Post report citing sources familiar with the conversations that took place Wednesday.

The governor’s formal announcement regarding the primary suspension could be made as soon as Friday, just one day before early voting was scheduled to begin, according to the report. Reuters was unable to independently confirm these details, and Governor Landry has not yet responded to requests for comment.

This decision comes in response to a 6-3 Supreme Court decision that struck down Louisiana’s electoral map, which would have created a second congressional district with a Black majority. Louisiana’s population is approximately one-third Black, and the state currently has six seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The high court’s decision significantly weakened an important section of the Voting Rights Act, making it more difficult for minority groups to contest electoral maps they believe are racially discriminatory under this historic civil rights legislation.

As the November congressional races approach, this Supreme Court ruling may prompt other Republican-controlled states to attempt redistricting efforts that could threaten House seats currently considered secure for Democrats. Black voters historically tend to support Democratic candidates.

The court’s decision arrives amid ongoing redistricting battles between Republican and Democratic states nationwide, as both parties seek to redraw electoral boundaries for political advantage before the November elections.

Former President Donald Trump and Republican leaders are working to maintain their narrow control of both the House and Senate in the upcoming elections.

WASHINGTON – The House of Representatives passed a budget framework Wednesday that could clear the path for a massive $70 billion increase in immigration enforcement funding over the next three years.

The budget outline, approved by lawmakers, would enable Congress to move forward with deliberating on the significant boost in resources for federal immigration agents and enforcement operations.

The three-year spending plan represents a substantial potential investment in border security and immigration enforcement activities across the country.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that his administration intends to make public extensive information about unidentified flying objects in the coming period.

The president stated that officials plan to disclose as much UFO-related material as they can to the American people.

Federal prosecutors have indicted three members of a Minnesota family for allegedly attacking a conservative media contributor during an anti-immigration enforcement demonstration, court documents revealed Wednesday.

Christopher Ostroushko, his wife DeYanna, and their daughter Paige each face federal assault charges following an April 11 incident involving Turning Point USA writer Savanah Hernandez. Federal prosecutors also charged Christopher and Paige with interfering with federally protected activities.

Additionally, Christopher Ostroushko is facing separate state-level misdemeanor assault charges through the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office.

Defense lawyers for the family stated they plan to vigorously fight the charges, noting that an indictment does not constitute a conviction.

The confrontation occurred during ongoing demonstrations against the Trump administration’s immigration policies near the Twin Cities. Protesters have regularly gathered outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building at Fort Snelling, where Immigration and Customs Enforcement operates a temporary detention facility.

Video evidence recorded by Hernandez on April 11 shows the incident escalating when Paige approached the journalist and blew a whistle directly at her face. Additional footage from different angles captures Hernandez attempting to shield herself and pushing back as the situation intensified.

During the altercation, Hernandez can be heard saying, “Get away from me.”

The video shows Paige shoving Hernandez, causing her to fall backward into a fence.

Subsequently, both parents confronted Hernandez separately, with Paige engaging again in the conflict.

According to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, Christopher Ostroushko “forcefully shoved the victim in the back, head first to the ground.” Prosecutors determined there was not enough evidence to pursue state charges against the other family members.

Bystanders at the scene attempted to calm the situation and separate those involved.

Following the April incident, Hernandez reported on social media that her eyeglasses were damaged, she sustained a concussion along with neck and back pain, and suffered leg abrasions. She indicated she was working with law enforcement to file charges.

Family attorney James Cook argued that circulated videos don’t capture the complete story and expressed confidence in mounting a strong defense.

“We think that there’s a lot of things in the videos that provide a means to exonerate,” he stated.

Cook explained that the Ostroushkos were frequent demonstrators at the federal building, participating to “provide a voice and a demonstration against Metro Surge.” He noted the family has faced online harassment since the incident, and both parents have lost their employment.

“They wish they could turn back the clock,” Cook said. “They wish that things didn’t turn out how they did.”

The family is scheduled to appear before a federal judge on May 12.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche released a statement Wednesday declaring that the Justice Department will consistently “punish unhinged acts of political violence.”

“Hernandez was allegedly surrounded, physically assaulted, and shoved to the ground — simply because she was identified by the defendants as a conservative journalist,” Blanche said. “That is NOT ‘peaceful protest.’”

In response to the charges, Hernandez posted that she was “incredibly grateful to see our justice system at work.” She did not respond to requests for additional comment.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump issued a fresh warning to NATO partner Germany on Wednesday, indicating he may decrease American military forces stationed there amid ongoing tensions with Chancellor Friedrich Merz regarding the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran.

The president’s warning followed Merz’s earlier comments this week claiming Iranian leadership was “humiliating” the United States and condemning Washington’s apparent lack of clear strategy in the conflict. Trump has also consistently criticized NATO members for their unwillingness to support America in the two-month military engagement.

“The United States is studying and reviewing the possible reduction of Troops in Germany, with a determination to be made over the next short period of time,” Trump declared on social media.

Earlier Wednesday, Merz stated his personal ties with Trump continued to be “as good as ever,” though he acknowledged having “had doubts from the very beginning about what was started there with the war in Iran.”

This isn’t Trump’s first attempt to reduce American forces in Germany. During his initial presidency, he previously sought to decrease U.S. troops there, arguing the nation wasn’t spending adequately on its own defense.

In June 2020, Trump revealed plans to withdraw approximately 9,500 of the roughly 34,500 American service members deployed in Germany at that time, though the reduction never began. President Joe Biden officially halted the proposed withdrawal after assuming office in 2021.

Germany hosts multiple significant American military installations, including headquarters for both U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command, along with Ramstein Air Base and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, which serves as the largest U.S. hospital beyond American borders.

Merz visited Trump at the White House in March, shortly after the U.S. and Israel launched their bombing campaign against Iran. During that meeting, Merz expressed Germany’s willingness to collaborate with America on planning for the eventual fall of Iran’s current government. He also voiced concerns that prolonged warfare could severely harm the worldwide economy.

Those worries, shared by numerous European officials, have intensified as the U.S. and Iran remain unable to negotiate the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the vital shipping channel that previously carried roughly 20% of global oil supplies before hostilities commenced on February 28.

“We are suffering considerably in Germany and in Europe from the consequences of, for example, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” Merz stated Wednesday, just hours before Trump posted his warning online. “And in that regard, I urge that this conflict be resolved.”

Merz emphasized that his administration maintained “good speaking terms” with the Trump administration.

Meanwhile, Trump has made little effort to hide his irritation with the German leader.

On Tuesday, he posted: “The Chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about!” Trump continued by saying it came as no surprise “that Germany is doing so poorly, both economically and in other respects!”

Several states wasted no time responding to Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision that severely curtails the consideration of race when creating congressional districts, undermining decades-old civil rights protections that enhanced minority representation in Congress.

The high court’s ruling targeted a predominantly Black congressional district in Louisiana, but its impact is already reverberating across multiple states where officials had been anticipating this exact outcome.

Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature moved within hours of the decision, passing new congressional maps that could deliver the GOP as many as four extra House seats in upcoming elections. Governor Ron DeSantis had strategically scheduled a special legislative session, betting the Supreme Court would rule in his favor.

DeSantis revealed his proposed House map earlier this week, which restructures a southeastern Florida district he claimed was designed specifically to ensure Black representation under federal voting rights law.

“Properly understood, the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government from divvying up the citizenry based in whole or in part upon race,” DeSantis stated in his Monday correspondence to state legislators.

Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2010 that prevents districts from being designed to weaken racial or language minorities’ voting power. However, DeSantis has maintained this amendment conflicts with federal constitutional law.

Ruth Greenwood, who heads Harvard Law School’s Election Law Clinic, cautioned that the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t automatically invalidate state constitutional safeguards against racial discrimination in voting districts.

Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves had already announced plans for a special legislative session to redesign the state’s Supreme Court districts, scheduled to begin three weeks after the federal court ruling. A federal judge previously mandated Mississippi redraw these districts after determining they violated the Voting Rights Act by weakening Black voter influence.

Reeves indicated in his announcement that the Supreme Court’s guidance would help lawmakers understand whether “race-conscious redistricting” contradicts constitutional principles.

Louisiana legislators postponed their primary elections from April to May, expecting to need time to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision on their congressional maps. With early voting beginning Saturday, it remains uncertain whether the Republican-led legislature can modify districts before November’s general election.

House Speaker Phillip DeVillier and Senate President Cameron Henry released a joint statement saying they’re examining the ruling and consulting advisors to “determine next steps to be taken in the best interests of Louisiana voters and our state.” Governor Jeff Landry similarly announced he’s discussing options with legislative leaders.

Alabama faces a complex situation, as a federal court in 2023 mandated creation of a new district with a near-majority Black population, resulting in the election of the state’s second Black House representative. While Alabama must use this map through 2030, a pending Supreme Court appeal challenges it as illegal racial gerrymandering.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall welcomed Wednesday’s Louisiana decision, stating he will “act as quickly as possible to apply this ruling to Alabama’s redistricting efforts and ensure that our congressional maps reflect the will of the people, not a racial quota system the Constitution forbids.”

Governor Kay Ivey noted the state isn’t positioned for an immediate special session, with primaries scheduled for May 19.

In Tennessee, where the legislative session concluded last week, Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn called via social media for lawmakers to reconvene and redraw the state’s sole Democratic congressional district to favor Republicans. This district encompasses Memphis, which has a Black majority population.

Tennessee’s Republican legislative leaders acknowledged discussing redistricting possibilities, though Senate Speaker Randy McNally highlighted logistical hurdles since candidate filing deadlines have passed and the primary approaches in August.

“With the filing deadline passed and qualified candidates already running for election, redistricting congressional seats at this time would present several logistical challenges,” McNally explained.

Illinois Democrats, anticipating the Supreme Court might weaken voting rights protections, approved a proposed state constitutional amendment last week that would safeguard race-based redistricting. The measure prioritizes creating districts where voters can elect representatives of their choice “on account of race,” ranking minority-majority districts above geographical considerations.

However, Senate President Don Harmon announced Wednesday the amendment won’t advance this session, allowing legal experts time to analyze the court’s decision.

“The last thing we want is to act in haste and risk unintended consequences down the road,” he stated. “Too much is at stake for too many.”

Defense Department leaders disclosed to lawmakers that military operations against Iran have reached an estimated price tag of $25 billion during budget hearings on Capitol Hill.

Pentagon officials made the financial revelation while testifying before Congress about defense spending priorities and budget allocations.

WASHINGTON — In a 235-191 vote, the House passed legislation Wednesday extending a controversial U.S. surveillance program for three years, just days before it’s set to expire on Friday. The measure includes additional oversight provisions but falls short of requiring warrants that privacy advocates have pushed for.

Most Republicans were joined by a significant number of Democrats in supporting the extension. However, the legislation’s future remains unclear as it awaits action from the Senate and President Donald Trump.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated Wednesday evening that his chamber probably won’t quickly approve the House version, suggesting a temporary extension will be necessary to avoid Friday’s expiration deadline.

The House vote represented a victory for Republican leadership after Speaker Mike Johnson spent the day winning over several GOP holdouts to move the measure to a final vote. Previous attempts to pass a long-term extension had failed after chaotic late-night sessions earlier this month.

“Two-thirds of the president’s daily national security briefing comes from intelligence collected by that statute,” Johnson said about the program. “We cannot allow it to go dark.”

At the heart of the controversy is a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that permits the CIA, NSA, FBI and other intelligence agencies to gather and examine communications from foreign subjects without obtaining warrants. This process can inadvertently capture communications involving Americans who communicate with those foreign targets, which many legislators view as problematic.

“The intel community always just comes in and says, ‘People will die if you do this,’” Republican Rep. Chip Roy said Tuesday, advocating for warrant requirements. “Well, I’m sorry. A lot of Americans died to give us and protect that Fourth Amendment right that we don’t have government looking at our stuff.”

Rather than including warrant requirements, the House legislation establishes new oversight mechanisms. These include monthly civil liberties reviews of searches involving U.S. citizens by an official from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, with violations reported to the Intelligence Community’s inspector general.

Additional provisions would establish criminal penalties for officials who deliberately abuse the system or falsify compliance records, mandate a government audit of targeting procedures, and create new protocols to give Congress greater access to FISA court proceedings.

House Democrats criticized the extension during floor debate before Wednesday evening’s vote. Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called the measure a “three-year blank check” that comes “without any meaningful guardrails.”

“Under this bill, FBI agents will still collect, search and review Americans’ communications without any review from a judge,” Raskin stated.

However, Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, supported the extension, describing the program as “without question, the most important foreign intelligence tool.” Himes, who voted for the measure, said the legislation makes oversight of the program “marginally and modestly stronger.”

While Thune said he has maintained contact with Johnson throughout the process, the next steps remain unclear even if the House passes the bill.

“We’re probably going to end up doing a short term,” Thune told reporters following the House vote.

A complicating factor is that House Republicans have tied the surveillance renewal to separate legislation that would prohibit a central bank digital currency — a proposal Thune has described as “very, very hard to pass” in the Senate.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, who has long advocated for FISA reforms, characterized the House deal as “deeply flawed,” though he declined to specify whether he would back an extension.

Thune suggested Wednesday that another temporary extension might be needed while lawmakers work out final details. He indicated a 60-day extension “could be a landing spot.”

WASHINGTON — Historic preservation advocates appeared in federal court Wednesday asking a judge to stop President Donald Trump’s proposed major construction work at the Kennedy Center, Washington’s renowned performing arts complex that has undergone significant changes since Trump returned to the presidency.

The coalition of cultural and preservation organizations wants U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to grant a preliminary injunction stopping all construction before the planned July 6 beginning date. They express concern that Trump and the center’s board of trustees may ignore historic preservation regulations designed to protect the building that welcomes millions of annual visitors.

Following Wednesday’s court session, attorney Greg Werkheiser explained that the governing statutes address “the very fundamental question of: Do we slow down and take stock before we make changes to properties that define the American experience?”

Federal prosecutors defending the president and board contended Wednesday that the proposed building modifications are narrow in scope and fall clearly within the board’s existing powers, requiring no additional governmental approvals.

Trump has focused considerable attention on the Kennedy Center since resuming the presidency. He removed the facility’s former management team and installed his own chosen board members, who subsequently appointed him as chairman. These leadership changes sparked significant criticism from the arts community and worsened the center’s budget problems. Trump’s name was subsequently added to the building’s exterior, and he revealed the renovation plans earlier this year.

Beyond serving as a top-tier arts and cultural institution, the Kennedy Center functions as a “living monument” honoring President John F. Kennedy, who secured funding for the project’s construction but was killed before its completion. Located along the Potomac River, the enormous building with its distinctive white marble exterior has become an iconic feature of Washington’s skyline.

This marks the second consecutive day of legal proceedings concerning the Kennedy Center’s future. Representative Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat, has filed a separate lawsuit seeking to prevent the renovations in her capacity as an ex officio board member. Judge Cooper is presiding over both cases. For the second straight day, the judge’s balanced questioning of both legal teams made it challenging to predict his eventual decision.

During his testimony, executive director Matt Floca, a former facilities manager promoted by the Trump-appointed board, described the planned work as necessary maintenance to address years of deterioration, including significant water damage to a section of the building staff dubbed “the swamp.”

“The most efficient and effective way to complete the magnitude of projects we need to complete is to close the center,” Floca testified.

Lawyers representing the preservation groups questioned whether the project scope is truly limited, citing Trump’s public comments about plans to “fully expose” the building’s steel framework.

Yaakov Roth, the Justice Department lawyer defending the president, dismissed these concerns as excessive.

“There’s no risk that there will be unilateral changes … that we’ll wake up and the building will be gone,” Roth argued.

The Kennedy Center legal battles reflect broader disputes over Trump’s initiatives to make permanent changes to Washington’s landscape. Since taking office, the former New York real estate developer has frustrated preservationists by renovating the White House’s historic Rose Garden. Last October, the administration demolished the White House’s East Wing to construct a $400 million ballroom.

In addition to the Kennedy Center, Trump has also placed his name on the United States Institute of Peace building. The president is also pursuing plans for constructing a 250-foot “triumphal arch.”

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to extend a controversial U.S. surveillance program for three more years, passing the measure 235-191 despite ongoing concerns about privacy protections.

The legislation received support from most Republicans and a significant number of Democrats, though its future remains unclear as it heads to the Senate. The program is set to expire Friday, creating pressure for quick action.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated Wednesday evening that the upper chamber likely won’t fast-track the House version, suggesting a temporary extension may be needed to meet the Friday deadline.

The House vote marked a victory for Republican leadership after Speaker Mike Johnson worked throughout the day to win over GOP holdouts who had previously blocked the legislation. Earlier attempts this month to renew the surveillance authority had failed on the House floor.

“Two-thirds of the president’s daily national security briefing comes from intelligence collected by that statute,” Johnson stated regarding the program. “We cannot allow it to go dark.”

The controversy revolves around a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that permits intelligence agencies including the CIA, NSA, and FBI to gather and examine communications from foreign subjects without obtaining warrants. During this process, the agencies sometimes inadvertently collect communications involving Americans who communicate with foreign targets, which many legislators find problematic.

“The intel community always just comes in and says, ‘People will die if you do this,’” stated Republican Representative Chip Roy on Tuesday while advocating for warrant requirements. “Well, I’m sorry. A lot of Americans died to give us and protect that Fourth Amendment right that we don’t have government looking at our stuff.”

Rather than including warrant requirements, the House measure establishes new oversight mechanisms. These include monthly civil liberties reviews of searches involving U.S. citizens by an official from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, with any violations being reported to the Intelligence Community’s inspector general.

The legislation would also establish criminal penalties for officials who deliberately abuse the system or falsify compliance records, mandate a government audit of targeting procedures, and require new protocols to give Congress greater access to FISA court proceedings.

House Democrats voiced strong opposition to the extension during floor debate before Wednesday’s vote. Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, criticized the measure as a “three-year blank check” that arrives “without any meaningful guardrails.”

“Under this bill, FBI agents will still collect, search and review Americans’ communications without any review from a judge,” Raskin argued.

Representative Jim Himes, the leading Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, defended the extension, describing the program as “without question, the most important foreign intelligence tool.” Himes, who supported the extension, said the legislation makes protective measures “marginally and modestly stronger.”

While Thune reported staying in communication with Johnson throughout the process, the bill’s next steps remain unclear even if it passes the House.

“We’re probably going to end up doing a short term,” Thune informed reporters following the House vote.

One complication involves House Republicans connecting the surveillance renewal with separate legislation that would prohibit a central bank digital currency — a proposal Thune described as “very, very hard to pass” in the Senate.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, who has long pushed for FISA reforms, called the House agreement “deeply flawed,” though he wouldn’t specify whether he would back an extension.

Thune suggested Wednesday that another temporary extension might be necessary while lawmakers work out final details. He indicated a 60-day extension “could be a landing spot.”

The nation’s highest court indicated during oral arguments that it may be inclined to terminate Temporary Protected Status protections for certain immigrant populations, a move that could impact thousands of people currently residing in the United States.

The Supreme Court justices heard arguments regarding the humanitarian program that shields migrants from deportation when conditions in their home countries are deemed unsafe due to armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary circumstances.

TPS provides temporary relief from removal proceedings and work authorization for eligible nationals whose countries face ongoing crises that prevent safe return. The program currently covers individuals from multiple nations experiencing various forms of instability.

Legal experts monitoring the proceedings noted the justices’ questioning suggested skepticism about continuing certain designations under the program. The court’s eventual ruling could significantly alter immigration policy and affect the legal status of numerous individuals who have built lives in American communities.

Immigration advocates have argued that ending TPS protections would force people to return to dangerous conditions, while opponents contend the temporary nature of the program should be enforced more strictly.

A final decision from the Supreme Court is expected in the coming months, with potential implications for immigration enforcement nationwide.

WASHINGTON – The White House confirmed Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s administration is conducting an assessment of American military personnel stationed in Germany, with the possibility of reducing troop numbers under consideration.

Speaking on the matter, Trump indicated that his team would reach a conclusion on potential changes to the military presence soon.

The announcement comes as part of ongoing evaluations of U.S. military deployments overseas.

WASHINGTON — Federal officials announced sweeping changes to firearms regulations Wednesday, marking a significant policy shift favored by Second Amendment advocates within President Donald Trump’s political coalition.

The timing drew sharp criticism from gun safety advocates, coming just days after authorities reported an armed individual attempted to breach security at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner with intentions to harm the Republican president.

The comprehensive package includes more than 30 regulatory modifications, with the most notable being plans to eliminate a 2024 Biden-era requirement that would have mandated thousands of additional gun dealers nationwide to conduct background screenings for purchasers at gun shows and other venues beyond traditional storefronts.

The previous regulation targeted what critics termed the “gun show loophole,” which permitted unlicensed sellers to complete firearm transactions without verifying whether buyers were legally barred from gun ownership. Second Amendment organizations and GOP-controlled states had mounted legal challenges against the requirement, claiming it infringed on constitutional rights and exceeded Biden’s executive authority.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche described the regulatory overhaul as the “most comprehensive regulatory reform package in the history” of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Blanche explained the modifications align gun rules with Supreme Court decisions while reducing administrative obstacles for firearms retailers and legal gun purchasers.

“For too long, regulations were written without any real understanding of how firearms businesses operate, how lawful gun owners handle their firearms, or what truly improves public safety,” Blanche said.

Anti-gun violence organizations criticized the administration for prioritizing gun rights supporters through relaxed rules they believe will compromise national security.

“Four days after the nation watched gunfire break out at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the Trump administration’s answer is to gut commonsense gun safety laws and sabotage the only federal agency dedicated to keeping guns out of criminal hands,” John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, said in a statement.

The regulatory changes received approval shortly after the U.S. Senate confirmed Robert Cekada, a veteran law enforcement professional, to head the ATF, the federal bureau tasked with enforcing America’s firearm statutes. Cekada, an ATF employee since 2005, has overseen the agency’s daily functions as deputy director for the past year.

Cekada becomes just the third confirmed director since Congress made the position subject to Senate approval in 2006. The bureau has predominantly operated under interim leadership, as both Republican and Democratic presidents have struggled to navigate the politically challenging confirmation process for ATF nominees.

While conservatives have historically criticized the ATF for its regulatory enforcement role, Trump’s Justice Department has emphasized the agency’s contributions to removing illegal weapons from communities and combating violent criminal activity.

“Rob is exactly the right person to lead the ATF at this moment,” Blanche said.

A landmark Supreme Court decision Wednesday delivered Republicans their most significant advantage yet in the ongoing fight for control of Congress and state legislatures nationwide, though the timing may prevent major changes to this year’s midterm races.

The court’s 6-3 conservative majority essentially dismantled key portions of the Voting Rights Act that required electoral districts to provide minority communities fair opportunities to choose their preferred candidates. This protection had previously safeguarded reliably Democratic majority-minority districts, even within Republican-dominated states where GOP lawmakers might otherwise create maps favoring their party.

Without this federal requirement, Republican state officials nationwide—particularly throughout the South—now possess greater freedom to dismantle Democratic-friendly districts and increase the number of seats they can capture to maintain House control. More than twelve such seats exist in GOP-controlled states.

Following Wednesday’s announcement, Republicans immediately began pushing for congressional map reviews in Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee and other states.

However, they face a significant obstacle: the decision arrived well past filing deadlines for 2022 primary elections, and some primaries have already occurred. This means ballots are finalized and early voting has commenced in several states.

These timing constraints make wholesale map revisions extremely difficult. Louisiana exemplifies this challenge—where the requirement to create a second Democratic-leaning, majority-Black House district prompted Tuesday’s court action, the federal primary is scheduled for May 16 with early voting beginning Saturday. Despite this, the state’s governor, attorney general and legislative leadership planned meetings to determine their response.

Republican officials have been working frantically to follow President Donald Trump’s instructions to redesign maps and create additional winnable House seats to prevent midterm losses. Demonstrating the urgency Republicans feel to capitalize on this opportunity, several gubernatorial primary candidates demanded immediate redistricting.

Georgia businessman and GOP gubernatorial candidate Rick Jackson emphasized urgency even as voting continued for the May 19 primary. “There is no time to waste,” Jackson declared while advocating for immediate redistricting. “Georgia must act now to ensure secure elections in Georgia and counter the Democrats’ national assault on our elections.”

Tennessee GOP gubernatorial nominee Sen. Marsha Blackburn demanded her state redraw its congressional boundaries to eliminate its single majority-Black Democratic congressional district in favor of one more favorable to Republicans—despite the March 10 ballot qualification deadline having passed.

While Democrats have largely neutralized Republican attempts to create more winnable seats during last year’s mid-decade redistricting cycle, they lack clear options to offset GOP gains from the effective weakening of the Voting Rights Act.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who chairs the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, criticized the timing in a statement referencing Republican-nominated Chief Justice John Roberts. “It should not be lost on anyone that the Roberts court makes this decision at a time when Republican leaders across the country are foaming at the mouth to draw the American people out of a meaningful say in our elections,” Holder stated. “They want to retain illegitimately obtained power through the use of, among other things, now Supreme Court-sanctioned racial and partisan gerrymandering.”

Florida stands as the only Republican state with a realistic opportunity to gain seats from Wednesday’s decision before the midterms. GOP Governor Ron DeSantis has scheduled a special session to approve his map potentially delivering four additional winnable House seats for his party. DeSantis had anticipated this Supreme Court outcome, and Florida’s primary doesn’t occur until August.

Wednesday saw the Florida Legislature approve the new congressional map.

Other states must navigate the unusual challenge of potentially revising maps while voting is already underway or candidate filing processes have concluded.

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina acknowledged uncertainty about fall implications. “I don’t know what the implications are going be for the fall. It’s pretty late,” Hudson said.

He indicated that upcoming redistricting decisions would remain with governors and state legislatures.

Long-term, the ruling opens the door for dramatic changes to America’s political landscape, potentially taking full effect by the 2028 presidential election.

Carnegie Mellon University political scientist Jonathan Cervas, who has served as court-appointed special master and mapmaker in multiple Voting Rights Act cases, declared the law’s protective power essentially eliminated. “The Voting Rights Act as a means to protect minority voters from vote dilution is essentially dead,” Cervas explained. “It’s hard to imagine how this decision does not lead to additional GOP districts into the future.”

Cervas observed that the Voting Rights Act doesn’t exclusively benefit Democrats. Its primary application occurs in local, nonpartisan elections for positions like school board or city council. However, Republicans have long argued that Democrats exploited the law to secure winnable districts for Black voters in red states—advantages that Republican-leaning white voters could never obtain in blue states.

National Republican Redistricting Trust Executive Director Adam Kincaid celebrated the decision in a statement. “For decades the left has spent hundreds of millions of dollars seeking to divide Americans along racial lines in a cynical pursuit of partisan power masquerading as civil rights,” Kincaid said. “Today’s decision rebukes that divisive and unconstitutional effort.”

Although the Voting Rights Act helped maintain Democratic-leaning districts, those voters don’t disappear because of Wednesday’s ruling. Republicans in some states cannot simply eliminate all such districts without distributing enough Democratic voters to threaten their own incumbents.

Similarly, the mandate to concentrate Democratic-leaning minority voters in specific districts has occasionally disadvantaged Democrats in states like Michigan, reducing the number of competitive districts they might capture. The party could partially offset Republican gains by distributing minority voters more broadly in states under their control.

However, political pressure against this approach will likely come from some Black and Hispanic Democrats who want to ensure their communities maintain majority status in certain districts. Democratic-controlled states are also more likely to have nonpartisan redistricting commissions that make congressional maps less partisan and increasingly adopt state-level Voting Rights Act versions to protect marginalized communities.

While this will require time, it all indicates a much less regulated mapmaking environment ahead.

This prospect concerns Thomas Johnson, a Black voter from New Orleans who was at the state Capitol lobbying on unrelated legislation Wednesday when the Supreme Court ruling was announced. The majority-Black congressional district where he lives could now be divided by the state’s Republican legislature.

“We are going to do all we can and continue fighting so our voices are heard,” Johnson said. “That’s all we want, to be heard.”

WASHINGTON – Federal education officials announced Wednesday they have launched an investigation into Stanford University regarding the school’s diversity initiatives, which the current administration claims constitute discriminatory practices.

The investigation represents part of President Trump’s wider campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion programs throughout both government agencies and private organizations since he returned to office in early 2024. University officials at Stanford have not yet provided a response to requests for comment about the federal probe.

Fresh federal court documents filed Wednesday have created uncertainty around earlier government statements regarding who actually wounded a Secret Service agent during Saturday’s alleged assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

The suspect, 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen, discharged a shotgun toward the staircase that led down to the ballroom where President Donald Trump, administration officials, and journalists had assembled, according to a pretrial detention filing that provides the most detailed government narrative of the incident to date.

While prosecutors mention in the filing that an officer discharged his weapon five times, the document makes no reference to that officer or any other agent being wounded. Investigators recovered one spent shell from Allen’s shotgun, the Wednesday filing states.

The paperwork does not allege that Allen targeted or hit the Secret Service agent who officials say sustained a chest wound but was shielded by body armor.

This account differs significantly from previous statements by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, and opens questions about the source of the gunfire that wounded the federal agent.

Following the incident, Pirro announced to media that Allen would face charges for “assault on a federal officer using a dangerous weapon,” though such charges have not yet materialized. Pirro indicated additional charges against Allen remain possible. Prosecutors have charged Allen with attempting to kill the president.

During a Sunday interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Blanche stated his belief that Allen’s shotgun rounds struck the officer. He maintained this position at Monday’s press conference while adding the qualifier, “We’re still looking at that.”

When Reuters sought clarification about who shot the Secret Service officer, a White House spokesperson directed inquiries to law enforcement agencies. Neither the Secret Service nor the Justice Department provided immediate responses to requests for comment.

The government’s version of events faced additional scrutiny Wednesday when the Washington Post analyzed security camera footage the publication acquired, which showed no evidence that Allen discharged his weapon.

The Post’s review revealed that a law enforcement officer fired his handgun repeatedly at Allen as he rushed through the security checkpoint at the Washington Hilton hotel. During the brief incident lasting only seconds, other security personnel appeared to be positioned in the shooting officer’s line of fire as Allen ran past.

Wednesday’s detention motion omitted any mention of a wounded Secret Service officer, though a Monday affidavit supporting the criminal complaint referenced the shooting without identifying the shooter.

The federal court affidavit stated that Secret Service personnel “heard a loud gunshot.” An agent identified only by the initials “V.G.” who was wearing protective gear sustained one gunshot wound, according to the document, which does not specify who fired the shot.

The affidavit indicates Officer V.G. fired several rounds at Allen, who was not wounded but collapsed to the ground.

Court documents reveal that Allen prepared a manifesto before his attack, writing that “in order to minimize casualties I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls).”

When questioned at Monday’s news conference about whether Officer V.G. was the sole officer to discharge his weapon, Blanche said investigators were gathering evidence but acknowledged the process was not an “exact science.” He observed that buckshot specifically “scatters everywhere, and sometimes it just disappears.”

Wednesday’s court filing contains a photograph Allen captured of himself in his hotel room mirror prior to the attack. The image shows him dressed entirely in black except for what appears to be a red necktie tucked into his trousers, equipped with an ammunition pouch, shoulder holster, sheathed blade, pliers and wire cutting tools.

WASHINGTON — Tuesday evening’s state dinner honoring King Charles III and Queen Camilla at the White House represented one of the most sought-after invitations in the nation’s capital, featuring nearly 130 distinguished guests who enjoyed Dover sole meunière and a unique beehive-themed chocolate dessert made with honey from the White House’s own beehive.

The guest roster for President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump’s formal dinner revealed a strong emphasis on corporate executives, technology company leaders, and personal acquaintances from the Trump family’s Palm Beach social circle.

Notably, every conservative Supreme Court justice received an invitation — including those who have previously ruled against Trump’s key tariff policies. However, the court’s three liberal justices were absent from the evening’s festivities.

The attendee list featured numerous personalities from Fox News, Trump’s preferred television network, along with representatives from two additional conservative media organizations. Three of the president’s five children attended alongside their spouses, and Trump’s father-in-law was also present. The gathering included several prominent athletic figures and multiple members of Congress, including top leadership from both the House and Senate.

Congressional leaders made progress Wednesday toward extending the federal government’s controversial surveillance capabilities, following intense lobbying efforts by House Speaker Mike Johnson and Trump administration representatives who successfully swayed reluctant Republican lawmakers.

Following an extended voting period lasting more than two hours, during which GOP leadership applied significant pressure on dissenting members to change their positions from opposition to support, the procedural motion to begin floor debate succeeded by a narrow 216-210 margin. This procedural vote was bundled with measures addressing immigration enforcement funding and agricultural policy.

The successful procedural vote clears the way for consideration of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act renewal without including provisions that would mandate court approval before federal law enforcement agencies can search through Americans’ communications data gathered by intelligence services. Several resistant lawmakers had insisted on such warrant requirements as a condition for their backing.

Following the vote, Johnson expressed his intention to expedite the legislation through the chamber quickly.

“We’ll move forward on FISA reauthorization. We’ll do that first,” Johnson stated to members of the media following the procedural vote. “We can still get it done tonight. The schedule’s been pushed back.”

The three-year extension of FISA authorities requires approval from both congressional chambers before becoming law. According to Elizabeth Goitein, who serves as senior director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program, the outcome remains uncertain.

“It’s rare for members to cross party lines on a rule vote, so the fact that the rule passed is not a strong indicator of what the vote will be on the underlying bill,” she explained via email.

President Donald Trump, who previously criticized FISA but now strongly supports it, has been applying pressure on congressional members to back the measure. The administration sent officials to the House floor Wednesday as part of their successful strategy to influence wavering lawmakers, according to Republican Representative Tim Burchett, who described FISA as “a nightmare.”

Burchett initially cast a vote against the procedural measure before changing his position to support it.

Federal prosecutors in Chicago announced they will dismiss conspiracy charges against four individuals who were arrested during immigration protests last September, according to defense lawyers.

The defendants include Kat Abughazaleh, a former journalist who previously ran for Congress as a Democrat, along with Andre Martin, Michael Rabbitt, and Brian Straw. Defense attorney Chris Parente confirmed that prosecutors revealed their decision during a Wednesday court session.

While the conspiracy charges represented the only felony counts against the group, the four still face misdemeanor charges for impeding a federal officer. The Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office has not yet responded to requests for comment.

The protesters became known as the “Broadview Six” after their demonstration at a detention center in Broadview, Illinois. Two other defendants, Catherine Sharp and Jocelyn Walsh, had all charges against them dismissed last month.

“The conspiracy charge was the most serious count, and it’s the most troubling because it was intended to silence dissent,” Parente stated.

According to prosecutors, the four defendants surrounded a federal agent’s vehicle and deliberately blocked its path as the agent attempted to enter the Broadview facility during the September 26 demonstration.

The protest occurred during the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement campaign called “Operation Midway Blitz,” which sparked widespread demonstrations throughout the Chicago area involving residents, political candidates, and elected officials.

During the operation, federal agents fatally shot one person and wounded another, while also using tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets against demonstrators. The Broadview detention center emerged as a central point of conflict during the enforcement action.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida’s Republican-dominated legislature has given final approval to a congressional redistricting plan designed to strengthen GOP control of the state’s House delegation in upcoming midterm elections.

The legislative action occurred merely 48 hours after Governor Ron DeSantis presented his redistricting proposal, coinciding with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that weakened key Voting Rights Act protections. This Supreme Court ruling may complicate Democratic efforts to contest Republican redistricting plans that potentially diminish minority voter influence.

Under DeSantis’ redistricting scheme, Florida’s congressional representation could shift dramatically from the existing 20-8 Republican split to a commanding 24-4 GOP majority. This potential pickup of four additional Republican seats matches what Virginia Democrats anticipate gaining from their own recent redistricting changes, though those face ongoing state court challenges.

Legal challenges to Florida’s new boundaries appear inevitable, particularly given state constitutional language that explicitly forbids redistricting for partisan political gain. However, DeSantis and his team express confidence that these constitutional protections have been significantly undermined by previous Florida Supreme Court decisions and Wednesday’s federal Supreme Court action.

During the hastily convened special legislative session, Florida Republicans holding supermajorities in both chambers offered minimal discussion about the new district boundaries. The bill’s sponsor, Representative Jenna Persons-Mulicka from Fort Myers, restricted her comments to cautious responses about the changing legal environment when pressed by Democratic lawmakers about the redistricting effort.

“I believe that there is a likelihood that that map will be upheld against legal challenge,” Persons-Mulicka said.

Democratic legislators condemned the redistricting as partisan manipulation designed to appease Trump while undermining the majority of Florida voters who aren’t registered Republicans.

“Y’all are doing this because y’all’s daddy in the White House is injecting national political objectives into what should be a state-driven process,” Rep. Michele Rayner, D-St. Petersburg, told her Republican colleagues.

NEW YORK — A federal appeals court has declined to allow all of its active judges to review President Donald Trump’s challenge to an $83 million defamation judgment, court officials announced Wednesday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted against holding what’s known as an “en banc” hearing, where the full court would reconsider the massive award to magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll. This development occurs as Trump has separately asked the Supreme Court to review a different $5 million judgment Carroll won after a jury determined he sexually assaulted her at Bergdorf Goodman in 1996 and subsequently made defamatory statements about her.

Trump’s legal representatives have not yet commented on the appeals court’s latest decision.

Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, released a statement saying her client was “eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice.”

The full court’s refusal to hear the case follows a September decision by a three-judge panel that upheld the $83 million award. One appeals judge had requested that all Manhattan-based appeals court judges consider the matter.

Wednesday’s vote showed five judges opposed the full court review while three supported it, according to the 2nd Circuit’s announcement.

Appeals Judge Denny Chin noted this marked the fourth occasion the court has refused to have all judges examine an appeal related to this litigation.

Chin referenced how Carroll initially made public allegations in her 2019 book, claiming Trump had sexually assaulted her during the 1990s in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room.

Following those revelations, Trump denied ever meeting Carroll, dismissed her allegations as false, and stated “she’s not my type” during a media interview. Carroll filed her defamation lawsuit in November 2019.

While Trump was absent from a May 2023 trial where jurors concluded he had sexually abused and defamed Carroll, he provided brief testimony during a second proceeding in January 2024 when the jury awarded Carroll the $83 million defamation judgment.

Chin supported the appeals court’s decision to maintain the substantial defamation award.

“The record showed that Trump made multiple statements over many years accusing Carroll of lying for political and financial gain, and suggesting that Carroll was too unattractive for Trump to have sexually assaulted her,” Chin explained in his opinion.

“As a result of Trump’s statements, Carroll was harassed and humiliated, subjected to death threats, and feared for her physical safety for years. And Trump showed no remorse, continuing his attacks against Carroll during and after two federal trials, and even proclaiming two days into the Carroll I trial that he would continue to defame her ‘a thousand times,’” Chin stated.

Three appeals judges — Steven J. Menashi, Michael H. Park and Debra Ann Livingston — supported having the complete 2nd Circuit review the appeal.

In their dissenting opinion authored by Menashi, these judges argued the appeals panel should have allowed the United States government to replace Trump as defendant after the attorney general determined he was operating within his official duties when the allegations emerged.

The dissenting judges also believed Trump should have been permitted to claim presidential immunity protections.

Additionally, they contended Trump deserved a new trial and determined the defamation award amount was “grossly excessive.”

“Put together, these proceedings represent a manifest miscarriage of justice,” Menashi concluded in the dissent.

WASHINGTON — In a unanimous decision Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a faith-based pregnancy center that claimed a New Jersey state investigation violated their constitutional rights.

The nation’s highest court delivered a procedural win for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which has been fighting a New Jersey probe into whether the organization misled clients to prevent them from seeking abortions.

While the conservative-dominated court has delivered several major victories to abortion opponents in recent years — including the landmark 2022 decision that eliminated the constitutional right to abortion — this case drew unusual support from across the political spectrum. Even the American Civil Liberties Union, which advocates for abortion access, backed First Choice’s constitutional arguments.

Wednesday’s ruling allows the organization to challenge a state subpoena in federal court, though it doesn’t settle the core dispute.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Erin Hawley, who represented the group, said they’re prepared to pursue the matter in federal court if New Jersey’s attorney general decides to “continue these efforts on remand.”

These facilities, commonly called “crisis pregnancy centers,” have expanded across the country as Republican-led states implement abortion restrictions and direct public funding toward the centers. The facilities typically provide pregnancy services while encouraging women to continue their pregnancies.

Meanwhile, Democratic-controlled states have launched investigations into whether these anti-abortion facilities deceive women, sometimes by suggesting they provide abortion services when they don’t.

New Jersey’s then-Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a subpoena demanding donor information and other records from First Choice.

The organization fought back, claiming the investigation lacked merit and that demanding donor lists violated their constitutional rights to free expression and association. When they attempted to challenge the subpoena in federal court, both a trial judge and appeals court determined the case wasn’t ready for federal review.

That led First Choice to petition the Supreme Court.

The organization contended that federal court access is crucial when government officials are accused of overstepping their authority. The ACLU supported this position, arguing that subpoenas targeting donor information can intimidate supporters.

New Jersey countered that the information would only be used to determine if donors were misled about the center’s services. The state also argued the subpoena couldn’t violate First Amendment rights since no information had actually been turned over yet.

Enforcing the subpoena requires a court order, and the judge handling the case has only directed both parties to negotiate so far.

New Jersey also warned that permitting First Choice to sue could trigger numerous lawsuits from the thousands of organizations that receive similar subpoenas.

The Trump administration supported First Choice’s position. The Justice Department maintained that any impact would be limited since the ruling would only affect organizations with comparable First Amendment claims.

WASHINGTON – Congressional representatives on Wednesday narrowly voted to proceed with discussions on important legislation addressing immigration enforcement budgets and the extension of overseas surveillance programs.

House Speaker Mike Johnson successfully convinced Republican colleagues to support the procedural motion during a lengthy voting process that remained open for over two hours. The chamber ultimately decided 215-210 to move forward with formal discussions on the bills.

The legislation under consideration would establish funding parameters for immigration enforcement activities while also addressing the renewal of foreign intelligence surveillance capabilities.

WASHINGTON – A security breach at Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner has sparked renewed debate about the future of the century-old journalism event, as safety concerns merge with existing ethical questions.

An armed individual rushed past security barriers at the Washington Hilton hotel, where prosecutors say he planned to harm President Donald Trump in the nearby ballroom. Security personnel quickly evacuated Trump and first lady Melania Trump from the venue without incident.

The security breach disrupted what had been an unusual evening of cooperation between the press and a president who has frequently criticized media coverage. However, even before this weekend’s events, many questioned whether reporters should socialize with the government officials they’re assigned to cover.

The annual black-tie gathering has operated as a Washington tradition for over 100 years, funding journalism scholarships while honoring First Amendment protections for free speech and press freedom.

Media companies buy tables and bring guests from top political and business circles. Celebrity-filled afterparties typically continue until the early morning hours. While presidents usually participate, Trump had avoided the event throughout his previous White House tenure until this year’s attendance.

“I think it’s not a good look for journalists to be dressed in tuxedos and gowns and hanging out with the people they cover,” said Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. “It’s always been a really tricky proposition.”

Through a Truth Social message Saturday evening, Trump indicated he wanted to reschedule the dinner. However, the White House Correspondents’ Association maintains authority over the event’s future.

When asked about upcoming plans, WHCA President Weijia Jiang directed questions to Sunday’s official statement.

“The WHCA board will be meeting to assess what happened and determine how to proceed,” Jiang wrote. “We will provide updates as soon as any are available.”

The organization’s statement praised journalists present for “jumping into reporting immediately after the incident unfolded.”

The formal dinner traditionally features comedic entertainment, with presidents often attempting humor themselves. In 2011, then-President Barack Obama used his speaking time to mock Trump, who attended as a business figure and television personality.

During Trump’s first presidency in 2018, comedian Michelle Wolf delivered harsh criticism of White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders at the dinner, worsening Trump’s already tense media relations. That year’s WHCA leader, Margaret Talev, acknowledged members felt “dismay” over Wolf’s remarks, leading to a more subdued program the next year.

Trump chose this year for his first presidential appearance at the event. Washington observers had eagerly anticipated his participation and expected comments, considering his history of attacking news organizations.

His actions against media outlets include multiple lawsuits, labeling truthful reporting as “fake news,” targeting individual journalists personally, and limiting reporter access to White House briefings and Pentagon coverage. Despite this, he has also shown more openness than past presidents to unstructured press sessions and reporter phone calls.

The New York Times stopped buying dinner tables in 2008 citing ethical concerns, though the newspaper continues reporting on the event.

Patrick Plaisance, an ethics professor at Pennsylvania State University’s Bellisario College of Communications, said the Times’ approach demonstrates “the inherent conflict that the event poses for journalists.”

Supporters argue that reporters regularly build source relationships in casual environments beyond formal briefings or scheduled interviews.

“Even though it may look like journalists are cozying up to politicians — and some are — a lot of beat reporting looks like that,” said Eric Deggans, a professor of journalism and media ethics at Washington and Lee University.

“It’s a more complicated situation than some of the critics are willing to allow,” he said.

Nevertheless, academic experts acknowledged that the dinner’s mission of celebrating press freedom often gets lost amid images of journalists and politicians enjoying expensive meals together. This year’s entertainment choice — mentalist Oz Pearlman — failed to address appearance concerns, Deggans noted.

“There’s been a long history of comics who roast the room — politicians and the press alike,” he said. “Moving away from that without explaining why creates its own public impression.”

“Once you layer in the security and safety concerns,” Deggans added, “it becomes an even more challenging proposition.”

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin has dramatically reshaped the federal environmental watchdog agency through sweeping changes that have drawn criticism from environmental advocates, according to a new report.

New Yorker journalist Elizabeth Kolbert reports that Zeldin has rolled back numerous environmental protections, dismantled or significantly reduced various agency departments, and laid off substantial numbers of scientific personnel since assuming leadership of the EPA.

The changes represent a significant shift in the agency’s operations and priorities under Zeldin’s leadership. President Trump has praised Zeldin’s work, referring to him as “our secret weapon” in the administration’s approach to environmental policy.

The restructuring has affected multiple areas of the agency’s work, with particular impact on the scientific workforce that conducts environmental research and analysis for federal policy decisions.

Congressional Democrats have launched an investigation into the Trump administration’s plan to spend close to $2 billion in taxpayer funds convincing energy companies to abandon offshore wind developments.

After federal courts blocked President Trump’s executive orders aimed at halting offshore wind projects, the Republican administration shifted to this new approach. Three separate agreements have now been revealed.

Representatives Jared Huffman of California, who leads Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee, and Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, are seeking detailed information about the largest of these arrangements. The March announcement revealed that French energy firm TotalEnergies would receive $1 billion — effectively returning their lease payments for wind projects planned off North Carolina and New York — provided they redirect that investment toward fossil fuel developments.

Huffman characterized the arrangement as a “scam” and warned the administration plans to “light a lot of federal taxpayer money on fire if we let them.”

In correspondence sent Wednesday to TotalEnergies and shared with The Associated Press, Huffman and Raskin notified the company of their investigation, requested documents and communications, and urged the CEO to reject the payment. Their letter details multiple ways they believe the agreement violates federal law.

“You can’t come into the United States and do a backroom deal like this, that just essentially treats the treasury as a slush fund, and walk away with a billion dollars,” Huffman stated.

When contacted for response, TotalEnergies referenced its earlier announcement. CEO Patrick Pouyanné had explained that TotalEnergies abandoned U.S. offshore wind development in return for lease fee reimbursement, “considering that the development of offshore wind projects is not in the country’s interest.”

Monday brought news of additional agreements, with the administration announcing that Bluepoint Wind and Golden State Wind had accepted lease terminations worth nearly $900 million combined, contingent on equal fossil fuel investments. Trump has embraced fossil fuel electricity generation, arguing it will reduce family energy costs, improve grid reliability and preserve America’s competitive edge in artificial intelligence development.

Both Bluepoint and Golden State operate under Ocean Winds, a partnership between EDP Renewables and French energy company Engie. Ocean Winds North America CEO Michael Brown explained that changing market conditions require companies to “adapt.”

Offshore wind project critics applauded the administration’s innovative approach.

“This is the latest strategy and we think it’s a winner,” stated Robin Shaffer, who leads Protect Our Coast New Jersey, on Wednesday. Shaffer argued the administration “is well within their rights to do this and private businesses can’t be forced to build anything.”

However, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York condemned it as a “bailout for fossil fuel donors dressed up as a deal.”

“Donald Trump spent years calling offshore wind subsidies a waste of taxpayer money,” Schumer declared. “Now his administration is handing nearly $2 billion of those very same taxpayer dollars to companies to abandon clean energy projects that would have powered millions of American homes and created thousands of good-paying union jobs.”

Following these deal completions, Ocean Winds will retain just one U.S. offshore wind project — SouthCoast Wind off Massachusetts. That project’s progress has decelerated under Trump’s presidency.

Amber Hewett, who oversees offshore wind energy initiatives at the National Wildlife Federation, argued that compelling developers to switch from offshore wind to oil and gas further delays U.S. climate change mitigation efforts. Fossil fuel combustion remains the dominant driver of global climate change.

Upon taking office in January 2025, Trump implemented a temporary suspension of wind energy project leasing and permitting. His administration has halted ongoing wind farm construction, scrapped plans for new offshore wind development in federal waters, and introduced additional review requirements for wind and solar projects.

Federal courts permitted wind farm construction to continue, overturned the initial order blocking wind energy development, and prevented the administration from requiring Trump’s interior secretary to personally approve all solar and wind projects on federal property.

Energy law specialist Kristoffer Svendsen believes the lease buyouts represent a final effort to eliminate offshore wind projects following the administration’s courtroom defeats. He knows of no similar arrangements where energy project developers received payment to abandon their plans.

“This saga never ends. They continue to surprise the industry and those of us following the industry,” said Svendsen, who serves as assistant dean for energy law at George Washington University Law School.

Svendsen anticipates energy companies will pursue opportunities in European and Asian markets, given the “quite bleak” outlook for new U.S. offshore wind development.

“At this point if you’re interested in offshore wind, you’ll most likely go to a jurisdiction where they want you,” he explained.

Last week, the Global Wind Energy Council reported record global wind installations of 165 gigawatts in onshore and offshore projects, with 138 nations now incorporating wind energy into their economies. This capacity can supply 118 million households. Asian markets, dominated by China and India, accounted for 80% of worldwide installations.

David Carroll, CEO and chief renewables officer for Engie North America, also predicts limited U.S. offshore wind advancement in coming years. He pointed to the administration’s permit revocations after years of preparation and substantial investment, plus construction halts on fully approved projects, as factors undermining business confidence.

“The offshore wind industry does not have a strong future here in the U.S. And that’s unfortunate,” said Carroll, who chairs the American Clean Power Association board, in a recent interview. “The Northeast needs more energy and that is one of the very key ways we can get energy in the Northeast.”

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Climate activist Tom Steyer is positioning himself as an unlikely champion against wealth inequality in California’s gubernatorial campaign, despite his own $2.4 billion fortune.

The Democratic candidate advocates for increased taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations while earning support from progressive organizations that oppose the existence of billionaires. Steyer, who established one of the globe’s most successful hedge funds, now faces the strongest opposition from business organizations among all candidates.

“I’m the billionaire who wants to tax other billionaires,” Steyer frequently declares, although his support for a billionaire tax measure potentially appearing on California’s November ballot remains lukewarm.

The 68-year-old has consistently embraced the apparent contradictions between his financial achievements and political positions. His hedge fund previously held fossil fuel investments while he simultaneously donated millions to defend California legislation targeting emissions reductions. During his 2019 presidential campaign against Donald Trump, Steyer advocated for removing corporate financing from political campaigns.

“I’m not one of the people who begrudges people’s success,” Steyer explained to The Associated Press, discussing entrepreneurs who achieve wealth in California. “If you’re going to come here and build a company and make a ton of money, great.”

“But you’re part of a system — you’re depending on a system built by, basically, poor people,” he added. “If you aren’t willing to pay your fair share, I feel like you’re spitting on those people.”

These positions have generated both strong support and ongoing skepticism. Progressive allies view him as an exceptional wealthy individual willing to challenge financial interests, while critics across party lines consider him insincere and question whether his campaign promises are realistic. Democratic opponents criticize his attempt to purchase the election, highlighting his advertising spending that exceeds his closest Democratic competitor by nearly 30 times.

Following years of leveraging his wealth to shape politics and policy, Steyer has emerged as a frontrunner in the race to lead America’s most populated state before the June 2 primary election. His former investment firm’s portfolio continues drawing criticism from Democratic rivals.

“You made the billions that you’re using to fund your campaign off fossil fuels,” former U.S. Representative Katie Porter challenged during Tuesday’s debate. Steyer countered by pointing to business groups opposing his candidacy: “That’s how you know I’m for real.”

Steyer established Farallon Capital Management in San Francisco during 1986. He gained recognition among business colleagues for the firm’s quick growth while managing criticism from environmental activists regarding the company’s oil and coal investments. He departed in 2012 to create NextGen America, an organization focused on youth voter engagement.

His political contributions have primarily targeted climate issues, including a $5 million donation in 2010 opposing a California ballot measure that would have suspended greenhouse gas reduction requirements. The environmental legislation survived. Beginning in 2013, he utilized NextGen’s political division to support gubernatorial and Senate candidates with strong climate positions, achieving mixed results.

Steyer has invested over $62 million in California ballot initiatives, including an unsuccessful 2020 campaign to preserve legislation eliminating cash bail requirements. He ranked among the top contributors to a successful 2016 measure imposing tobacco taxes to fund healthcare for low-income residents.

Some view his contributions with skepticism. Republican strategist Rob Stutzman referenced an advertisement Steyer funded last year prominently featuring himself promoting a redistricting ballot measure. The initiative was championed by Governor Gavin Newsom, with Steyer’s only involvement being financial support for advertising.

“Steyer has always been a self-promoter with his dollars,” Stutzman observed.

Steyer identifies three primary challenges: climate change, California’s expensive living costs, and threats from the Trump administration.

Recently, hundreds gathered at a San Francisco ping-pong venue for cocktails and appetizers funded by his campaign while Steyer emphasized his climate commitment. His plan lacks detailed specifics but includes defending the state’s cap-and-trade system.

Major environmental organizations have endorsed his candidacy. Progressive groups also support him, including Our Revolution, established by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and dedicated to eliminating corporate and billionaire political influence. State Assemblyman Alex Lee, leading the progressive caucus, backs Steyer partly due to his support for government-operated healthcare, despite repeated legislative failures in Sacramento.

Lee initially hesitated supporting a billionaire but considers Steyer unique.

“He is someone who became wealthy in his lifetime,” Lee explained, “but didn’t go off and become (Mark) Zuckerberg level.”

Meanwhile, Pacific Gas & Electric, among America’s largest utilities, spent $10 million opposing his candidacy. Steyer has promised to “break up utility monopolies” to reduce Californians’ notoriously expensive electricity costs. One advertisement partially funded by PG&E claims Steyer isn’t truly a “different type of billionaire” as he maintains. The California Chamber of Commerce argues Steyer will increase rather than decrease costs.

“His policy promises will cost billions, driving investment out of California and worsening the state’s affordability crisis,” chamber spokesperson John Myers stated.

Whether financial resources and endorsements will convert to votes remains uncertain. Political analysts suggest Steyer’s potential breakthrough would be apparent by now given his extensive spending campaign.

Financial resources proved insufficient during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. Steyer focused his campaign on appealing to minority voters, emphasizing healthcare access, environmental, and criminal justice inequalities. In South Carolina, his $24 million advertising investment exceeded all other candidates combined, yet he withdrew after placing third.

He frequently attracted attention for personal quirks rather than policy positions — his signature red plaid tie and colorful belt, plus his dance performances to rapper Juvenile’s music.

Steyer had planned $100 million in spending, but his wealth became problematic in a race where competitors like Sanders criticized billionaire existence.

He has exceeded that amount in California’s gubernatorial primary alone, including advertisements targeting opponents. This time, reception has been more favorable.

“Tom Steyer is running on taxing the wealthy, supporting single-payer healthcare, and taking on corporate power — positions that are central to our movement,” Our Revolution Executive Director Joseph Geevarghese stated. “That alignment with a pro-worker, anti-corporate agenda — and the urgency of this race — is why we are backing him.”

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Former FBI Director James Comey will appear in federal court Wednesday, launching a criminal prosecution that legal analysts believe will be difficult for the Justice Department to successfully pursue.

Federal prosecutors in North Carolina filed charges Tuesday alleging Comey threatened President Donald Trump through a social media photograph he shared last year showing seashells positioned to form the numbers “86 47.” According to the government, these digits constituted a threat against Trump, who serves as the nation’s 47th president. Comey maintains he viewed the arrangement as expressing a political viewpoint rather than advocating violence against the Republican leader, and he deleted the image once he realized some viewers interpreted it as threatening.

This marks the second time in a year that Comey, who has clashed with Trump since his FBI tenure, faces federal charges. A judge dismissed the previous case involving allegations of false statements and obstruction. Now government attorneys must demonstrate that Comey either deliberately intended to communicate a genuine threat or recklessly ignored the possibility his post could be viewed as menacing.

While the charging document alleges Comey acted “knowingly and willfully,” it provides limited supporting details for this claim. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche refused to discuss what evidence of criminal intent prosecutors possess during a press briefing. However, robust First Amendment speech protections, established Supreme Court rulings, and Comey’s public denials of threatening intent will likely create substantial obstacles for the government’s case.

“In this situation, ’86’ carries multiple meanings — it doesn’t clearly suggest violence, and the fact that a former FBI Director posted this openly on a public platform indicates he wasn’t trying to communicate a violent threat,” explained John Keller, a former senior Justice Department attorney who previously oversaw prosecution of violent threats against election officials.

Prosecutors filed the case in North Carolina’s Eastern District, where the beach location Comey says he discovered the shells is situated. His initial court hearing is scheduled for Wednesday at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, where he currently resides.

The Supreme Court has established that speech loses First Amendment protection only when it constitutes a “true threat.”

This legal standard requires prosecutors to demonstrate, at minimum, that a defendant recklessly ignored the possibility their statement could be interpreted as threatening violence. In a 2023 Supreme Court decision, the majority ruled that prosecutors must prove the “defendant possessed some personal awareness of his statements’ threatening character.”

Additionally, the Supreme Court has determined that exaggerated political rhetoric receives constitutional protection. In a 1969 ruling, the justices found that a Vietnam War demonstrator did not make a deliberate threat against the president when he stated that “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J,” referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson. The court observed that audience laughter when the protester spoke, among other factors, demonstrated it wasn’t a genuine threat of violence.

Concerning this current matter, Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 86 as slang meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of” or “to refuse service to.” The dictionary notes: “Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of ‘to kill.’ We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.”

Comey removed the post quickly after publishing it, explaining: “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence” and “I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

John Fishwick, who formerly served as U.S. attorney in Virginia’s Western District, suggested the government will likely argue that Comey’s FBI background should have made him aware of the implications.

“I believe they’re going to attempt to argue circumstantially that as former FBI head, you understood what these terms signified and you broadcast them globally as a presidential threat,” Fishwick explained, while acknowledging such reasoning would face challenges given Comey’s clear First Amendment protections.

Comey cooperated with a Secret Service interview last year, and the absence of false statement charges suggests prosecutors lack evidence he deceived agents, Fishwick noted.

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, argued in a Tuesday opinion piece that “despite being one of Comey’s longest critics, the indictment raises troubling free speech issues. In the end, it must be the Constitution, not Comey, that drives the analysis and this indictment is unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

“If it did,” he continued, “it would allow the government to criminalize a huge swath of political speech in the United States.”

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — A veteran Florida politician who has held offices at both state and federal levels is now setting his sights on leading his hometown as mayor.

Charlie Crist, 69, submitted campaign documents this week to pursue the mayor’s seat in St. Petersburg, marking another chapter in a political journey that has seen him change party affiliations multiple times. Throughout his decades-long career, Crist has identified as Republican, Democrat, and independent at different points.

The politician’s resume includes serving as Florida’s governor under the Republican banner from 2007 through 2011, followed by three terms as a Democratic congressman representing the area until 2022. His recent electoral efforts proved unsuccessful, including a 2022 gubernatorial challenge against Republican Ron DeSantis and a 2014 attempt to unseat then-Governor Rick Scott, both as a Democratic candidate.

Crist will compete against incumbent Ken Welch, who made history as St. Petersburg’s first Black mayor and is seeking another term. Notably, Crist had previously supported Welch’s initial campaign for the position. The mayoral contest operates as a nonpartisan election, with approximately six other contenders currently in the field.

The city, located across Tampa Bay from Tampa, ranks among Florida’s more liberal municipalities and consistently elects Democratic candidates to various positions. During a previous interview last autumn, Crist emphasized his deep connections to the community, highlighting his graduation from St. Petersburg High School and his congressional representation of the region.

“St. Petersburg is a very special place to me. It’s home,” Crist said.

Crist’s political biography spans numerous roles and party switches throughout Florida government. His early career included positions as state senator, education commissioner, and Florida attorney general, all while serving as a Republican. Multiple unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaigns dot his record, including a 2010 independent bid against Marco Rubio, who now serves as U.S. Secretary of State. He once earned the nickname “chain-gang Charlie” for implementing programs requiring prisoners to perform highway cleanup duties.

During his congressional tenure, Crist cast votes to impeach President Donald Trump on two occasions during Trump’s initial presidency. His most recent statewide campaign ended in defeat when DeSantis secured approximately 59% of the gubernatorial vote against him.

Meanwhile, Welch has indicated his concentration remains on mayoral duties. St. Petersburg recently faced significant challenges, including damage from back-to-back Hurricanes Helene and Milton in 2024, ongoing uncertainty surrounding the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team’s sale, and persistent problems with elevated water utility costs.

The nation’s highest court has dealt a significant blow to voting rights protections that have combated racial discrimination at the polls for over fifty years, ruling against a Louisiana congressional district with a Black majority.

The court’s conservative justices determined that the district, currently held by Democratic Representative Cleo Fields, placed too much emphasis on racial factors when boundaries were drawn. Chief Justice John Roberts characterized the district as resembling a “snake” that winds across more than 200 miles to connect communities in Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge.

The full impact on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remains uncertain, but legal experts warn the decision may enable GOP-controlled states to dismantle Black and Latino districts that typically support Democratic candidates, potentially shifting congressional power dynamics. This comes as President Donald Trump has already initiated nationwide redistricting efforts to strengthen Republican electoral prospects.

Those challenging the district contended that Louisiana’s second Black-majority congressional seat, created to address previous discriminatory mapping, violated constitutional principles by using race as a primary factor while ignoring traditional redistricting criteria such as geographic compactness.

Civil rights leaders responded with sharp criticism to Wednesday’s ruling. Derrick Johnson, who leads the NAACP, called the court’s action “a devastating blow to what remains of the Voting Rights Act.”

“This ruling is a license for corrupt politicians who want to rig the system by silencing entire communities,” Johnson stated. “The Supreme Court betrayed Black voters, they betrayed America, and they betrayed our democracy.”

Johnson noted the timing’s significance, coming roughly six weeks after civil rights veterans commemorated the 61st anniversary of Bloody Sunday, when peaceful voting rights demonstrators faced violent attacks from Alabama state troopers on Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge. That brutality helped galvanize national support for the landmark voting legislation now under threat.

“This ruling is a major setback for our nation and threatens to erode the hard-won victories we’ve fought, bled, and died for. But the people still can fight back,” Johnson declared. “Our democracy is crying for help.”

Lauren Groh-Wargo, who directs Fair Fight Action, the Georgia voting rights organization established by Democrat Stacey Abrams, accused the court of dismantling voting protections “while pretending to uphold it.”

According to Groh-Wargo, the justices effectively rewrote the law to demand proof of deliberate discrimination, despite Congress specifically amending the Voting Rights Act in the early 1980s to reject such requirements after an earlier Supreme Court ruling attempted similar changes. Notably, Roberts served as a Justice Department lawyer at that time advocating for intentional discrimination standards.

“It allows states, counties and cities to shield their discriminatory maps by claiming they are advancing their own partisan interests, ignoring that race and party are highly correlated in places across the country, particularly the South,” Groh-Wargo explained in a message to the Associated Press.

The White House celebrated the outcome, with spokesperson Abigail Jackson calling it “a complete and total victory for American voters.”

“The color of one’s skin should not dictate which congressional district you belong in. We commend the court for putting an end to the unconstitutional abuse of the Voting Rights Act and protecting civil rights,” Jackson said.

Multiple states have already implemented new House district maps following Trump’s call last year for Texas Republicans to redraw boundaries, aiming to secure additional seats and preserve the party’s narrow House majority heading into midterm elections.

The redistricting competition appears balanced so far. Republican strategists believe they could capture up to nine additional seats through new maps in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, with potentially four more if Florida approves pending legislation. Democratic analysts project their party could gain 10 seats from redistricting efforts in California, Utah and Virginia.

New Orleans Mayor Helena Moreno, a Democrat representing the state’s other predominantly Black congressional district, criticized the Supreme Court’s decision as “a step backward.”

“For decades, the Voting Rights Act has served as a critical safeguard to ensure every voice, especially those historically marginalized, has a meaningful opportunity to be heard,” Moreno explained.

“Striking down a district that reflected diversity suppresses voices and weakens our democracy. We should be working to expand representation, not roll it back,” she added.

The timing proved particularly relevant in Florida, where the state Senate briefly paused proceedings so members could examine the ruling and consult legal counsel. However, the Republican-controlled chamber proceeded with plans to approve Governor Ron DeSantis’ congressional redistricting proposal later Wednesday.

Florida’s current congressional boundaries gave Republicans a 20-8 seat advantage in 2024 elections. DeSantis’ redistricting plan aims to expand that margin to potentially 24-4 by November.

The 1965 voting rights legislation represented the Civil Rights Movement’s signature achievement, successfully expanding ballot access for Black Americans while reducing systematic voting discrimination.

Election law specialist Nicholas Stephanopoulos estimates that nearly 70 of the nation’s 435 congressional districts currently receive Section 2 protections.

Justice Elena Kagan warned in her dissenting opinion that “the consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter.”

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the six conservative justices, declared the Louisiana district central to the case “an unconstitutional gerrymander.”

The court released its decision while Florida lawmakers debated DeSantis’ proposed congressional map changes, designed to potentially give Republicans a 24-4 delegation advantage.

Senate Democrats unsuccessfully urged their Republican colleagues to postpone deliberations, allowing time to review the Supreme Court ruling and seek legal guidance on its implications for the governor’s proposal.

Legal scholars and redistricting attorneys contacted immediately after the decision’s release indicated they needed additional time to fully analyze the ruling’s broader consequences.

Federal prosecutors have disclosed disturbing new evidence against a California man accused of attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump during the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, including a self-portrait he captured moments before the alleged attack.

According to court documents filed Wednesday, 31-year-old Cole Allen of Torrance, California, photographed himself in his Washington Hilton hotel room wearing tactical gear including an ammunition pouch, gun holster, and knife sheath. The image showed Allen dressed in dark clothing with a red necktie just before he allegedly attempted his assault.

Federal authorities say Allen tried to rush security barriers outside the ballroom where Trump and hundreds of media members had gathered for Saturday evening’s gala event. The incident resulted in gunfire between Allen and Secret Service personnel protecting the venue.

The president escaped injury and was quickly evacuated by his protection detail. Speaking from the White House two hours afterward while still wearing his formal attire, Trump commented on the incident.

“When you’re impactful, they go after you. When you’re not impactful, they leave you alone,” Trump stated. “They seem to think he was a lone wolf.”

Prosecutors seeking to keep Allen detained revealed additional planning details in their court submission. They allege he continuously monitored Trump’s whereabouts that evening through online sources, including watching live feeds of the president’s arrival at the hotel. Investigators discovered pre-written emails containing an “Apology and Explanation” document that were automatically sent around 8:30 p.m.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Jones emphasized the severity of the threat in court papers, writing: “He intended to kill and fired his shotgun while trying to breach security and attack his target. Put simply, the defendant poses an uncommonly serious danger to the community if released pending trial. The defendant’s lack of criminal history and other personal circumstances do not alter this conclusion.”

FBI documentation from Monday’s filing revealed extensive advance preparation for the attack. Investigators say Allen booked his hotel accommodation on April 6, securing a room at the same Washington venue where the heavily secured event would occur weeks later. He made a cross-country train journey from California the previous week, arriving at the Washington Hilton one day prior to the dinner for his weekend reservation.

The assault began almost immediately after the evening’s festivities commenced, with officials reporting Allen’s attempt to charge past security positions near the large ballroom filled with media professionals and their guests. Authorities say he carried a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun purchased the previous year and a .38 caliber semiautomatic handgun bought in 2023.

While Allen sustained injuries during the confrontation, he was not struck by gunfire. One Secret Service agent was shot during the incident but survived due to protective body armor, according to officials. Allen’s federal public defender maintains his client’s presumption of innocence.

WASHINGTON — A Senate committee moved President Donald Trump’s choice to head the Federal Reserve one step closer to confirmation Wednesday, approving Kevin Warsh’s nomination in a split vote along party lines.

Republican senators supported Warsh’s nomination 13-11, while Democratic members opposed his selection to replace current Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, who has faced repeated criticism from Trump over interest rate policies.

Warsh previously served as a senior Federal Reserve official but has become a vocal critic of both the institution and Powell’s management. He has described the 2022 inflation surge that reached 9.1% as the central bank’s most significant policy error in 40 years. While a full Senate vote likely won’t occur until February, confirmation could happen before Powell’s chairmanship expires on May 15.

Wednesday’s banking committee decision coincides with what may be Powell’s final meeting leading the Fed’s rate-setting panel. During an afternoon press conference, Powell might reveal whether he plans to continue serving on the central bank’s board of governors once his chairman role concludes.

Though it would be uncommon for Powell to remain, such a move would prevent the Trump administration from naming a replacement board member. Powell might choose to stay if he believes it’s essential for preserving the Fed’s independence, which has become a defining aspect of his tenure.

Committee Chairman Tim Scott, the South Carolina Republican, praised Warsh as “battle tested” and stated, “It is incredibly important that we break the bind of Bidenomics on households across this nation.”

Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren condemned the committee’s action on Warsh’s nomination, arguing it “will bring the president one step closer to completing his illegal attempt to seize control of the Fed and artificially juice the economy.” She referenced Trump’s efforts to remove Fed governor Lisa Cook and investigate Powell.

The Federal Reserve is expected to maintain its benchmark rate at approximately 3.6% for the third consecutive meeting Wednesday, going against Trump’s demands for lower rates.

Warsh has advocated for “regime change” at the Fed and might modify numerous institutional practices, including economic modeling approaches, public communication strategies, and long-term bond portfolio size.

While such modifications could impact financial markets, they may not be immediately apparent to ordinary Americans. However, Warsh has supported additional rate reductions, which could potentially decrease costs for home mortgages, car loans, and business financing. He faces obstacles to implementing quick cuts, primarily because the Iran conflict has driven up gas prices, pushing inflation to a two-year peak of 3.3%.

The Federal Reserve generally maintains or increases rates when confronting rising inflation.

The majority of the remaining 11 rate-setting committee members have signaled they prefer to assess inflation and economic trends before adjusting rates. Building sufficient influence to advocate for swift rate cuts may require time for Warsh. He will also succeed Stephen Miran, a Trump appointee from September who has been the most consistent voice for rate reductions on the committee.

Questions about Warsh’s independence from the White House persist, an issue that dominated his Senate Banking hearing last week. Warren said Wednesday, “Mr. Warsh is a Trump sock puppet who is so cowed by the president that he could not even say that Trump lost the 2020 election.”

Trump posted on social media in December calling for significantly lower interest rates, adding that “anyone who does not agree with me will never be Fed chair!” Last week, he told Fox Business he anticipates rates declining “when Kevin gets in.”

During his confirmation hearing, Warsh denied that Trump had ever directly pressured him to reduce rates.

WASHINGTON — In a ruling that may reshape congressional maps across the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Louisiana’s second Black-majority congressional district on Wednesday, determining that racial considerations played too significant a role in its creation.

The high court’s conservative justices ruled against the district currently held by Democratic Representative Cleo Fields. Chief Justice John Roberts had previously criticized the district’s unusual shape, calling it a “snake” that spans over 200 miles to connect communities in Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge.

This ruling significantly undermines protections within the historic Voting Rights Act that guard against discriminatory redistricting practices. Legal experts question how much enforcement power remains in Section 2 of the law, which serves as the primary tool for challenging racially biased election procedures.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act represented a cornerstone achievement of the Civil Rights era, successfully expanding ballot access for Black Americans and combating widespread voting discrimination.

According to election law specialist Nicholas Stephanopoulos, approximately 70 of the nation’s 435 congressional districts currently receive Section 2 protections.

The justices reviewed this case for the second time in October, though it remains uncertain whether the timing allows states like Louisiana to redraw their maps before the 2026 midterm contests, where Republicans aim to maintain their narrow congressional majority.

President Donald Trump has already initiated a nationwide redistricting effort designed to strengthen Republican electoral prospects.

State legislatures can already create heavily partisan districts following a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that removed restrictions on such practices.

This decision represents a complete reversal from the court’s position in a comparable Alabama case less than three years ago, which resulted in new congressional boundaries that elected two Black Democrats to Congress.

The Alabama ruling also led Louisiana legislators to establish their second Black-majority district. Black residents comprise roughly one-third of Louisiana’s population and now hold majorities in two of the state’s six congressional seats. Alabama maintains a separate appeal currently before the Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON — In a ruling that may reshape congressional representation nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district on Wednesday, determining that racial considerations played too dominant a role in its creation.

The court’s conservative justices ruled against the district currently held by Democratic Representative Cleo Fields. Chief Justice John Roberts had previously criticized the district’s unusual shape, calling it a “snake” that winds over 200 miles to connect communities in Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge.

This ruling significantly undermines protections found in historic voting rights legislation designed to prevent discriminatory redistricting practices. Legal experts question how much remains of Section 2, the primary tool for challenging racially biased electoral maps.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act represented a cornerstone achievement of the Civil Rights era, successfully expanding ballot access for Black Americans and combating widespread voting discrimination.

According to election law specialist Nicholas Stephanopoulos, approximately 70 of the nation’s 435 congressional districts currently receive Section 2 protections.

The justices reviewed this case twice, hearing arguments again in October. It remains uncertain whether the timing allows Louisiana and other states to redraw their maps before the 2026 midterm contests, where Republicans aim to maintain their narrow House majority.

President Donald Trump has already initiated nationwide redistricting efforts designed to benefit Republican candidates.

State legislatures can already create heavily partisan districts following a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that removed federal oversight of such practices.

This decision reverses course from a similar Alabama case decided less than three years ago, which resulted in new congressional boundaries that elected two Black Democrats to the House.

That Alabama ruling also led Louisiana legislators to establish their second majority-Black district. Black residents comprise roughly one-third of Louisiana’s population and now hold majorities in two of the state’s six congressional seats. Alabama maintains a separate appeal before the Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON – The nation’s highest court delivered a unanimous decision Wednesday allowing a religious pregnancy counseling facility to pursue federal litigation over what it claims is an unconstitutional state probe into its operations.

The ruling represents a procedural win for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which has been fighting a New Jersey examination of whether the organization provides misleading information to women seeking reproductive health services.

While the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has handed significant victories to abortion opponents in recent years – including the landmark 2022 decision eliminating constitutional abortion protections – this case drew unexpected backing from the American Civil Liberties Union. Despite supporting reproductive rights, the ACLU sided with the pregnancy center’s constitutional free speech arguments.

The court’s decision clears the way for First Choice to pursue its federal lawsuit challenging the state subpoena.

These pregnancy counseling facilities, commonly called “crisis pregnancy centers,” have expanded across America as Republican-led states implement abortion restrictions and direct public funding toward organizations that encourage women to continue pregnancies.

Meanwhile, Democratic-controlled states have launched investigations into whether these anti-abortion facilities provide deceptive information to clients, sometimes suggesting they perform abortions when they do not.

New Jersey’s former Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a subpoena demanding donor information and additional records from the organization.

The pregnancy center fought back, claiming the investigation lacked merit and that requiring donor lists violated constitutional protections for free expression and association. When they attempted to contest the subpoena in federal court, a district judge ruled the matter was premature. An appellate court upheld that decision.

First Choice subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

The organization contended that federal court access remains crucial when government officials face accusations of abusing their authority, while the ACLU supported their position that subpoenas targeting donor information can intimidate financial supporters.

New Jersey officials maintained they would only use the information to question donors about potential deception regarding the center’s services, arguing no First Amendment violation occurred since no information had actually been surrendered.

Enforcing the subpoena requires a court order, and the presiding judge has only directed both parties to engage in negotiations thus far.

State officials also warned that permitting First Choice to sue could trigger numerous similar lawsuits from thousands of businesses receiving comparable subpoenas.

The Trump administration filed a brief supporting the pregnancy center’s position. Federal attorneys argued the impact would remain limited since the ruling would only affect organizations with comparable First Amendment claims.

LONDON (AP) — When it comes to diplomatic missteps, this one wasn’t the worst imaginable.

During Tuesday evening’s state dinner celebrating King Charles III and Queen Camilla’s visit, President Donald Trump broke established protocol by sharing details from a confidential discussion he’d had with the British king earlier that day. Trump revealed that Charles had expressed agreement with his stance that Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons.

“We’re doing a little Middle East work right now … and we’re doing very well,” Trump addressed the dinner guests. “We have militarily defeated that particular opponent, and we’re never going to let that opponent ever — Charles agrees with me, even more than I do — we’re never going to let that opponent have a nuclear weapon.”

Although Trump’s position on Iran likely resonates with many British citizens, his public disclosure created unease among political observers in the United Kingdom.

Such behavior simply violates British customs.

Traditional protocol dictates that private discussions with the monarch should remain confidential. This rule exists both to keep the king removed from political controversies and because the sovereign cannot publicly defend himself or clarify statements if misrepresented.

“Generally, as a matter of protocol, I think I would expect discussions between heads of state to be sort of behind the scenes, in those closed meetings, for those to be sort of kept private,” said Craig Prescott, an expert on constitutional law and the monarchy at Royal Holloway, University of London. “And, you know, this was something that the U.K. government wanted to avoid.”

Considerable anxiety preceded the king’s American visit, particularly given Trump’s open displeasure with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer for not backing U.S. military actions in the Iran conflict.

This royal visit, like others, represents a meticulously planned diplomatic mission undertaken at the British government’s behest, with hopes that positive relations between Charles and Trump — who appears fascinated by royal traditions — might help mend strained ties.

However, Trump’s unconventional leadership style and tendency to disregard established norms raised questions about potential inappropriate remarks or actions.

Fortunately, the king’s reported views appeared consistent with current U.K. governmental policy.

“The King is naturally mindful of his government’s long-standing and well-known position on the prevention of nuclear proliferation,” Buckingham Palace stated, providing context for the president’s comments.

Prescott noted that “in a sense, this was always the issue, just what Trump would do or say — would he put the king in an embarrassing position.”

“You always had that sort of issue of what he would post on social media,” he continued. “And I think, you know, this could have been much, much worse.”

Earlier, Charles addressed a joint Congressional session before the state dinner. The monarch received multiple standing ovations during his remarks, which honored enduring U.S.-British relationships while acknowledging disagreements on NATO, Ukraine support, and climate action.

From the British government’s perspective, the visit now moves to less risky territory as the royal couple departs Washington for New York, where they’ll focus on the city’s creative sectors rather than political matters.

The visit’s most challenging phase may have concluded, Prescott suggested.

“If this is the only controversy arising out of this phase of the state visit, I think overall this has been an enormous success for the king and the British government, because the king was able to make some quite pointed remarks in Congress and it hasn’t really yielded any sort of negative reaction from the president.”

“In a sense,” he added, “you get the feeling that the king (has) rather charmed Washington with his speech to Congress and, you know, his very witty speech at the state banquet.”

WASHINGTON — Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the Trump administration’s proposal to cut his agency’s budget in half during heated congressional budget hearings this week, leading to fiery exchanges with Democratic lawmakers who accused him of abandoning the EPA’s core mission.

During three days of budget hearings, Zeldin took a combative stance when questioned about the proposed $4.2 billion budget, often turning questions back on Democratic representatives and at times suggesting they were unprepared or indifferent to the agency’s accomplishments.

Since taking charge, Zeldin has dismantled major climate initiatives, advanced what he describes as the most extensive deregulation effort in U.S. history, and terminated billions in environmental justice funding from the Biden era, which he characterizes as ending “EPA’s radical diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.”

The Republican administration’s budget proposal would dramatically cut funding for state environmental initiatives and water infrastructure loans, end what officials term “radical climate research,” and reduce enforcement resources. However, the plan requests additional funding for expedited project approvals and addressing drinking water emergencies.

Congressional approval is required for budget changes, and historically lawmakers have rejected such drastic cuts. Last year, despite Trump administration requests for over 50% reductions, Congress only decreased EPA spending by 3.5%. Democrats argue the budget demonstrates Zeldin’s favoritism toward industry while ignoring pollution’s health impacts including cancer and respiratory diseases.

“The budget proposal reads like a climate change deniers’ manifesto,” Connecticut Representative Rosa DeLauro, the leading Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, stated during Monday’s hearing. She questioned how the EPA could justify abandoning its responsibility to protect Americans “under the false flag of economic growth?”

The agency has moved to reverse a key determination that climate change poses dangers, weakened Biden-era coal plant pollution standards, and proposed eliminating greenhouse gas limits for certain vehicles.

When DeLauro challenged him, Zeldin countered by asking where climate change appears in the Clean Air Act and whether she knew about recent Supreme Court rulings limiting EPA’s regulatory authority.

“You do not have the right to say climate change does not exist, that it’s a hoax,” DeLauro responded.

Zeldin replied that he recognized her frustration and suggested she should be familiar with major Supreme Court cases. “You’re just somebody who likes to have the microphone on,” he added.

The confrontation escalated from there, with DeLauro calling the Trump administration’s conduct “arrogant” and accusing it of “making a mockery of what the agencies are all about.”

In another tense moment, Zeldin dismissed data cited by California Democratic Representative Josh Harder regarding coal plant emissions rollbacks as worthless, saying “Have your dog pee on it. It is not accurate.” Harder’s office subsequently provided the EPA report they said was the source of their figures.

Zeldin maintained that despite reduced funding, the agency continues enforcing environmental laws and achieving notable successes, citing an agreement with Mexico to decrease sewage flowing into the polluted Tijuana River and accelerated efforts to address radioactive contamination in the St. Louis area.

He argued this work reflects strict legal compliance, contrasting it with what he called regulatory overreach by President Joe Biden’s administration that sought to harm essential industries like coal.

Republican lawmakers generally endorsed Zeldin’s assertion that “Not only will we be able to fulfill all of our statutory obligations, we will be able to do more with less.”

The 2021 bipartisan infrastructure legislation allocated tens of billions for drinking and wastewater loans through state programs, but this funding expires this year, and the EPA’s proposed budget would eliminate most agency support.

“It was never intended to be a new norm for spending,” Virginia Republican Representative Morgan Griffith noted.

However, this would eliminate funding to remove dangerous PFAS chemicals from drinking water. Democratic Representative Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts found the agency’s claim that improved technology could accomplish more with less funding unconvincing.

“How do we get rid of PFAS in municipal water supplies with 90% fewer dollars?” he inquired.

Zeldin mentioned promising technologies before criticizing congressional earmarks, which members use to fund district projects with money otherwise allocated to states for loans — a practice many experts oppose.

“I know that members of Congress are going to raid it, and they have been doing it for a long time,” said Zeldin, who previously served as a New York congressman.

Auchincloss responded that Zeldin wasn’t responsible for earmarks and that “hope is not a strategy.”

Questions also arose about industry influence on policy decisions, particularly regarding the Make America Healthy Again movement, which has criticized environmental damage from products like fertilizer. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. leads this initiative.

Maine Democratic Representative Chellie Pingree asked Zeldin if he understood advocates’ concerns about industry influence at the EPA and the Trump administration’s support for increased pesticide use.

He characterized much of her lengthy question as inaccurate, then mentioned plans to examine microplastics as potential drinking water contaminants and an upcoming review of the controversial herbicide glyphosate.

“I get it, you have an agenda,” Zeldin said. “I mean, I understand you’d like to have a gavel in your hand.”

WASHINGTON — Britain’s King Charles III celebrated the enduring alliance between his nation and the United States during a historic address to Congress, marking his first speech to American lawmakers as monarch.

Speaking to members of both chambers, the King expressed appreciation for the opportunity to address the joint session and thanked Americans for their hospitality during this commemorative year marking 250 years since the Declaration of Independence.

“Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, members of Congress, representatives of the American people across all states, territories, cities and communities,” Charles began his remarks.

“I would like to take this opportunity to express my particular gratitude to you all for the great honor of addressing this joint meeting of Congress and, on behalf of the queen and myself, to thank the American people for welcoming us to the United States to mark this semi-quincentennial year of the Declaration of Independence.”

The monarch acknowledged the challenging global environment, referencing conflicts spanning from Europe to the Middle East and recent violence near the Capitol building.

“We meet in times of great uncertainty; in times of conflict from Europe to the Middle East which pose immense challenges for the international community and whose impact is felt in communities the length and breadth of our own countries,” he stated.

“We meet, too, in the aftermath of the incident not far from this great building that sought to harm the leadership of your nation and to foment wider fear and discord.”

Charles emphasized unwavering opposition to violence, declaring: “Let me say with unshakeable resolve: such acts of violence will never succeed. Whatever our differences, whatever disagreements we may have, we stand united in our commitment to uphold democracy, to protect all our people from harm, and to salute the courage of those who daily risk their lives in the service of our countries.”

Reflecting on the weight of history, the King noted his position as the 19th British sovereign to closely monitor American affairs across more than four centuries of shared history.

“Standing here today, it is hard not to feel the weight of history on my shoulder — because the modern relationship between our two nations and our own peoples spans not merely 250 years, but over four centuries. It is extraordinary to think that I am the 19th in our line of sovereigns to study, with daily attention, the affairs of America.”

Charles paid tribute to his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, who addressed Congress in 1991, noting he now spoke “under the watchful eye of the Statue of Freedom above us.”

“Speaking in this renowned chamber of debate and deliberation, I cannot help but think of my late mother, Queen Elizabeth, who, in 1991, was also afforded this signal honor and similarly spoke under the watchful eye of the Statue of Freedom above us.”

Adding a touch of humor, the King referenced British parliamentary tradition: “As you may know, when I address my own Parliament at Westminster, we still follow an age-old tradition and take a member of Parliament ‘hostage,’ holding him or her at Buckingham Palace until I am safely returned. These days, we look after our ‘guest’ rather well – to the point that they often do not want to leave. I don’t know, Mr. Speaker, if there were any volunteers for that role here today?”

Charles traced the historical foundations of the US-UK relationship, noting how disagreement ultimately strengthened their bond.

“With the spirit of 1776 in our minds, we can perhaps agree that we do not always agree – at least in the first instance. Indeed, the very principle on which your Congress was founded – no taxation without representation – was at once a fundamental disagreement between us, and at the same time a shared democratic value which you inherited from us.”

“Ours is a partnership born out of dispute, but no less strong for it,” he continued. “Drawing on these values and traditions, time and again, our two countries have always found ways to come together. And by Jove, Mr. Speaker, when we have found that way to agree, what great change is brought about – not just for the benefit of our peoples, but of all peoples.”

The monarch referenced a quote from former President Trump’s state visit to Britain: “As President Trump himself observed during his state visit to Britain last autumn, ‘The bond of kinship and identity between America and the United Kingdom is priceless and eternal. It is irreplaceable and unbreakable.’”

Charles revealed this marked his 20th visit to the United States and his first as King, joking about his ancestry: “This is a city which symbolizes a period in our shared history, or what Charles Dickens might have called ‘A Tale of Two Georges’: the first President, George Washington, and my five-times Great Grandfather, King George III. King George never set foot in America and, please rest assured, I am not here as part of some cunning rearguard action.”

He praised America’s founders as “bold and imaginative rebels with a cause” who “declared Independence” 250 years ago, noting they carried forward “the great inheritance of the British Enlightenment” and ideals rooted in “English common law and Magna Carta.”

“The Founding Fathers were bold and imaginative rebels with a cause. Two hundred and fifty years ago, or, as we say in the United Kingdom ‘just the other day,’ they declared Independence. By balancing contending forces and drawing strength in diversity, they united 13 disparate colonies to forge a nation on the revolutionary idea of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’”

Charles highlighted the deep constitutional connections between the nations, noting how Britain’s Declaration of Rights of 1689 influenced the American Bill of Rights of 1791, and how Magna Carta has been cited in at least 160 Supreme Court cases since 1789.

The King addressed the role of faith in governance, sharing his personal perspective: “And, Mr. Speaker, for many here – and for myself – the Christian faith is a firm anchor and daily inspiration that guides us not only personally, but together as members of our community. Having devoted a large part of my life to interfaith relationships and greater understanding, it is that faith in the triumph of light over darkness which I have found confirmed countless times.”

Turning to contemporary security challenges, Charles emphasized the importance of the Atlantic alliance, particularly referencing Henry Kissinger’s description of Kennedy’s “soaring vision” of partnership between Europe and America.

He recalled his grandfather King George VI’s 1939 visit to America as fascism threatened Europe, drawing parallels to current global instability: “Today, we find ourselves in a new era, but those values remain. It is an era that is, in many ways, more volatile and more dangerous than the world to which my late mother spoke, in this chamber, in 1991.”

The monarch announced Britain’s commitment to significantly increased defense spending: “The United Kingdom recognizes that the threats we face demand a transformation in British defense. That is why our country, in order to be fit for the future, has committed to the biggest sustained increase in defense spending since the Cold War.”

Charles solemnly referenced the 25th anniversary of September 11th, promising continued remembrance: “This year, of course, also marks the 25th anniversary of 9/11. This atrocity was a defining moment for America and your pain and shock were felt around the whole world. During my visit to New York, my wife and I will again pay our respects to the victims, the families, and the bravery shown in the face of terrible loss. We stood with you then. And we stand with you now in solemn remembrance of a day that shall never be forgotten.”

He called for continued resolve in supporting Ukraine: “Today, Mr. Speaker, that same, unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people. It is needed in order to secure a truly just and lasting peace.”

The King highlighted military cooperation, including the AUKUS submarine program with Australia and joint F-35 production, noting thousands of American service members stationed in Britain and British personnel serving across 30 American states.

Charles emphasized economic ties, citing “430 billion dollars in annual trade that continues to grow, the 1.7 trillion dollars in mutual investment that fuels that innovation, and the millions of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic supported across both economies.”

He praised educational exchanges through the Marshall Scholarship program and called for environmental stewardship, noting how Scottish and Appalachian mountains were once connected as “a single, continuous range, forged in the ancient collision of continents.”

“Yet even as we celebrate the beauty that surrounds us, our generation must decide how to address the collapse of critical natural systems which threatens far more than the harmony and essential diversity of nature,” Charles warned.

Concluding his address, the King invoked President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: “President Lincoln understood this so well, with his reflection in the magisterial Gettysburg Address that the world may little note what we say, but will never forget what we do.”

“And so, to the United States of America, on your 250th birthday, let our two countries rededicate ourselves to each other in the selfless service of our peoples and of all the peoples of the world,” Charles declared, ending with: “God bless the United States and God bless the United Kingdom.”

Historic preservation and architecture organizations will present their case to a federal judge Wednesday, seeking to block the Trump administration’s extensive renovation plans for Washington’s Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper will conduct a 10 a.m. hearing to review whether a preliminary injunction should be granted in the lawsuit brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the American Institute of Architects, and six additional organizations in March.

The coalition argues that both Trump and the Kennedy Center’s governing board do not possess the legal power to move forward with their construction proposal for the renowned arts facility without proper congressional authorization and required regulatory oversight.

“It is a city upon a hill. It should not — and by federal law cannot — be demolished or overhauled in secret or at lightning speed, and certainly not at the executive’s personal whim,” the plaintiffs told Cooper.

The court has permitted both the preservation organizations and the Trump administration to examine Matthew Floca, who serves as the Kennedy Center’s executive director under Trump’s appointment.

Trump’s renovation proposal for the center, which he has already renamed to incorporate his name and displayed on the structure, represents one component of the Republican president’s wider initiative to transform Washington’s historic monuments. His additional plans include constructing a 250-foot arch and developing a 90,000-square-foot ballroom where the demolished White House East Wing currently stands.

These other projects are similarly encountering legal opposition. A federal appeals court has permitted the Trump administration to proceed with the ballroom construction while the case remains under review.

Regarding the Kennedy Center litigation, the administration informed Cooper through court documents that the proposed construction would be confined to current buildings and property, noting that Congress essentially approved the project last year by allocating $256.7 million for renovations.

The challenging groups maintain that the funding was restricted to “necessary expenses for capital repair, restoration, maintenance backlog, and security structures.”

Trump declared last year that the Kennedy Center, established as a tribute to former Democratic President John F. Kennedy, was in “tremendous disrepair.”

The Department of Justice has filed a second set of criminal charges against James Comey, who previously served as FBI Director. This marks another legal development in the ongoing case against the former federal law enforcement chief.

In international news, King Charles has made public statements advocating for enhanced diplomatic ties between the United Kingdom and the United States, emphasizing the importance of strengthening the relationship between the two nations.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case involving former President Trump’s previous efforts to terminate Temporary Protected Status designations for individuals from Haiti and Syria. The high court’s decision will determine whether these immigration protections can be eliminated for refugees from these countries.

The Supreme Court is examining the Trump administration’s push to terminate Temporary Protected Status for immigrants from Haiti and Syria.

The legal challenge centers on the TPS program, which allows qualified foreign nationals to remain and work in the United States when they are unable to safely return to their home nations due to exceptional or temporary circumstances.

An unusual political campaign is taking shape in Vermont, where a teenager has thrown his hat into the ring for the state’s highest office. Dean Roy, who is only 14 years old, has announced his candidacy for governor in the Green Mountain State.

What makes this campaign legally possible is Vermont’s unique position as a state that has not established minimum age requirements for individuals seeking the governor’s mansion. Roy has chosen to pursue his political ambitions through a third-party candidacy rather than aligning with either major political party.

The young candidate’s entry into the gubernatorial race represents an extraordinary example of how different states handle eligibility requirements for their top elected positions.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is scheduled to appear before lawmakers on Wednesday in his first congressional testimony since the Trump administration initiated military action against Iran, a conflict that Democratic leaders have criticized as an unauthorized and expensive military engagement.

The House Armed Services Committee session is planned to review the administration’s proposed 2027 defense budget, which seeks to increase military spending to an unprecedented $1.5 trillion. Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine are anticipated to emphasize requirements for additional drone technology, missile defense capabilities, and naval vessels.

Democratic committee members are expected to challenge officials on the escalating expenses of the Iranian conflict, the significant depletion of essential U.S. weapons stockpiles, and a school bombing incident that resulted in civilian casualties. Legislators may also examine the military’s readiness to counter Iranian drone attacks, particularly after some aircraft breached American defenses and caused casualties among U.S. personnel.

Although a temporary ceasefire is currently active, the United States and Israel initiated hostilities on February 28 without seeking congressional authorization. Democratic members in both chambers have been unsuccessful in advancing war powers legislation that would compel President Trump to suspend operations pending congressional approval.

Republican lawmakers have expressed continued support for Trump’s military strategy, pointing to Iran’s nuclear capabilities, diplomatic possibilities, and the risks associated with military withdrawal. However, GOP members are anxious for the conflict’s conclusion, with some considering future legislative actions that could challenge the president if hostilities continue.

Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil transport route, has caused fuel costs to surge and created political challenges for Republicans approaching midterm elections. The United States has implemented a naval blockade against Iranian vessels and increased regional military presence, deploying three aircraft carriers to the Middle East simultaneously for the first time in over two decades.

Both nations seem trapped in a military deadlock, with Trump reportedly rejecting Tehran’s recent proposal to reopen the shipping lane in exchange for ending the war, removing the naval blockade, and delaying nuclear negotiations.

Hegseth has evaded public congressional scrutiny regarding the conflict, though he and Caine have conducted televised Pentagon press conferences. The defense secretary has primarily engaged with conservative media representatives while referencing biblical texts to criticize mainstream news organizations.

Wednesday’s hearing will present a significantly different environment for Hegseth, as will Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Committee appearance with Caine. Lawmakers’ inquiries are expected to extend beyond budget matters and the Iranian situation to address Hegseth’s dismissal of senior military officials.

Following Navy Secretary John Phelan’s exit last week, Hegseth has also removed Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George and multiple other high-ranking generals, admirals, and defense officials.

“Tell us why. You know these are important positions. We are in a war posture with Iran,” said North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican.

Tillis, whose vote was essential for Hegseth’s confirmation, stated that the defense secretary’s Pentagon management has led him to reconsider his endorsement.

“He may be able to clean it up, but on its face, you don’t go through the number of highly reputable, senior-level officials, admirals and generals,” Tillis added.

Georgia Republican Rep. Austin Scott criticized George’s dismissal during last week’s House Armed Services Committee session, declaring that “some of us are not through asking the questions about that.”

“I think the firing of Gen. George was an extreme disservice to the United States Army,” Scott said. “And I think it was reckless conduct.”

CAPE ELIZABETH, Maine (AP) — When Maine Governor Janet Mills wants to illustrate why others shouldn’t count her out politically, she recalls an incident from her early career involving a powder blue outfit she once donned in court.

More than 40 years ago, Mills made history as the state’s first female prosecutor in the attorney general’s criminal division when she won a murder case. However, the newspaper coverage the next day highlighted something entirely different: “The prosecutor wore pale powder blue.”

“That wasn’t the first time someone underestimated me. And it certainly wasn’t the last,” Mills, who is now seeking a U.S. Senate seat, stated in a recent message to her campaign supporters.

This theme has become central to the two-term governor’s messaging as she campaigns for the Democratic nomination to challenge veteran Republican Senator Susan Collins. Although Mills brings decades of government experience and has earned backing from Washington’s Democratic leadership, she finds herself trailing in the race leading up to next week’s initial primary debate.

Her primary challenger, Graham Platner, a former military member turned oyster farmer, has been attracting larger and more energetic audiences. Platner has also outpaced Mills in fundraising and has saturated television and radio with advertisements since launching his campaign last summer.

Mills contends she represents the Democrats’ best option against Collins in what could be a pivotal Senate contest. She believes her smaller, more personal campaign events allow for deeper voter connections. With their first debate set for May 7 — the opening round of five planned debates — Mills expects Platner’s previous controversial statements to become a major talking point. She emphasizes her extensive governmental background, contrasting it with Platner’s limited experience serving only on a small town’s planning committee.

Following a Portland demonstration supporting Planned Parenthood, Mills highlighted her role in establishing the Maine Women’s Lobby, an organization advocating for gender equality since the 1970s, and her long-standing commitment to reproductive rights. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund recently endorsed her candidacy.

“He’s been nowhere on these issues,” Mills said of Platner. “He’s never walked the walk.”

Mills boasts an impressive list of firsts in Maine politics. She broke barriers as the state’s inaugural female district attorney, attorney general, and governor. For this Senate campaign, she has secured endorsements from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

However, her past successes may not guarantee victory in this year’s Democratic primary, as party members debate whether seasoned politicians or fresh candidates offer the better path forward. Platner has won support from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and other progressive figures who argue that Democrats’ 2024 electoral setbacks demonstrate the need for new leadership.

Age has emerged as another campaign issue. At 78, Mills has committed to serving just one term if elected. Platner, who is 41, argues that voters should choose a senator willing to build long-term influence in Washington, where gaining seniority and policy influence typically requires years. This age difference presents both opportunities and challenges, given Maine’s older population but Democrats’ growing concerns about elderly candidates following Joe Biden’s decision to abandon his reelection bid at age 81.

“I’m really torn, I want the person who can win,” said Karen Tilbor, 79, who supports Mills as governor but remains undecided about the primary. She believes “many more young people” will support Platner.

While Platner organizes large rallies across the state, Mills’ supporters argue the governor doesn’t need massive events because she already enjoys broad name recognition and voter familiarity with her positions and character.

Denham Ward, 79, finds this approach appealing.

“She has got supporters who have known her for a long time, who know what she can do,” Ward explained. “She’s a known commodity for the state and has an organization that I think can take on Susan Collins.”

Emily Cain, a former Maine legislator and past executive director of EMILY’s List, which supports female Democratic candidates and has endorsed Mills, believes the fundamental question for primary voters is: “Who do you think has the best chance of beating Sen. Collins?”

Although Maine voters chose Democrat Kamala Harris over Donald Trump in 2024, Collins has maintained her Senate seat for decades by positioning herself as a moderate in a predominantly Democratic state.

“If it’s just about who you like better, or who makes you feel better, then that is different than who you think can win in the fall,” Cain observed.

Even Mills’ supporters like Cain avoid claiming she has a clear advantage in the Democratic primary.

“I think the governor has a path to victory,” Cain said. “I think it’s going to be up to her, her team and her supporters to get across that finish line.”

Mills maintains that Platner’s controversial background makes him a riskier choice for the general election.

Questions persist about inflammatory statements Platner posted online previously, which he has since renounced but which Mills featured in an attack advertisement where women called his remarks “disgusting.” He has also faced scrutiny over a skull-and-crossbones tattoo associated with Nazi imagery that he received while drinking during military leave in Croatia. Platner has since had the tattoo covered.

Mills also confronts some challenges. Liberal voters have criticized her opposition to a ballot measure creating a red flag gun law in the state, though the measure ultimately passed.

Additionally, Mills has positioned herself as a Trump opponent, which may help in much of Maine but could alienate voters in rural areas. Trump has won the presidential vote in the Republican-leaning 2nd Congressional District in three consecutive elections.

Platner has built his campaign around economic concerns like housing and healthcare costs while targeting billionaires and what he terms “oligarchy.”

During a recent Saturday rally, he appeared alongside Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who told the crowd of hundreds that the nation requires significant change.

Meanwhile, Mills recently spent a Friday meeting with small business owners in Cape Elizabeth and South Portland, coastal communities near the state’s largest city.

These events weren’t intended to draw massive crowds, and they didn’t. One involved casual conversations with restaurant patrons during lunch, while another featured discussions with a flower shop owner and employees. Each event attracted approximately five to 10 attendees.

Some voters present believed Mills’ governmental experience would benefit the state.

“Janet Mills has a ton more experience at many levels of government and I think has the best chance to hopefully give Maine a little bit of a leg up in terms of getting federal funding for us, and some federal recognition,” said Shelley Stevens, 51, who owns Fiddleheads florist in Cape Elizabeth. “It’s just very pragmatic for me.”

WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court will consider Wednesday whether the Trump administration has the authority to terminate legal safeguards for migrants who escaped conflict zones and natural catastrophes, marking another significant immigration dispute before the justices during the president’s comprehensive border enforcement efforts.

Federal officials are challenging lower court rulings that prevented the Department of Homeland Security from rapidly terminating temporary protected status for individuals from Haiti and Syria. Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the Trump administration, officials could remove protections from as many as 1.3 million individuals across 17 nations, making them vulnerable to removal proceedings.

The justices have previously supported the administration and permitted the termination of protections for Venezuelan nationals while litigation continues, though they provided no explanation for their decision.

Government lawyers maintain that the Homeland Security secretary possesses authority to terminate the program called TPS, and that statutory language prevents courts from reviewing such determinations. Federal attorneys stated in legal filings that “‘No judicial review’ means no judicial review.”

However, attorneys representing approximately 350,000 Haitian migrants and 6,000 Syrian nationals argue that courts can examine whether officials adhered to all procedural requirements outlined in federal law. They maintain that in both situations, the government bypassed proper procedures.

Following President Donald Trump’s return to office, Homeland Security has terminated protections for 13 nations. Legal advocates report that some individuals who maintained lawful residence and employment in America for over ten years have lost their livelihoods and homes within weeks. Returning to Haiti and Syria remains impossible for many due to continued violence and chaos in those nations, according to Sejal Zota, co-founder and legal director of Just Futures Law.

“This really is life or death,” she said. Legal documents reveal that four Haitian women deported from America in February were later discovered beheaded and abandoned in a river.

The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court after federal judges in New York and Washington, D.C., agreed to postpone the termination of protections. One court determined that “hostility to nonwhite immigrants” likely influenced the decision to end Haitian protections. During his campaign, Trump promoted unfounded claims that Haitian immigrants were stealing and consuming pets. Federal officials have rejected allegations that racial bias influenced TPS determinations.

Syrian nationals received protected status initially in 2012 during a civil conflict that persisted over a decade until President Bashar Assad’s regime collapsed in late 2024.

Haitians entered the program following a devastating 2010 earthquake and have received multiple extensions due to persistent gang warfare that has forced over one million people from their homes, court records show.

Maryse Balthazar was visiting the United States when the earthquake devastated her homeland of Haiti. She has maintained temporary legal status for 16 years, raising two children while working as a nursing assistant for elderly patients. Healthcare industry representatives argue in court filings that the field depends on Haitian immigrants like Balthazar and would suffer significantly if the Supreme Court permits their status to end.

For Balthazar, losing protection would be catastrophic. The earthquake destroyed her Haitian residence, and another potential home was lost in a fire possibly linked to gang activity. “I’d be homeless,” she said. “I’m scared … it’s a fear we are all living with.”

Additional immigration matters before the Supreme Court this term include Trump’s effort to limit birthright citizenship and the administration’s authority to reinstate restrictive asylum policies.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is alerting lawmakers that money to compensate Department of Homeland Security employees will be depleted by May, raising concerns about potential airport delays and national security risks as Congress continues to delay action on ending the agency’s historic funding shortage.

The Office of Management and Budget delivered a memo to legislators Tuesday evening, stating that emergency funds President Trump allocated through executive orders to pay Transportation Security Administration employees and other DHS workers will be exhausted next month. The memo urged the House to swiftly pass the budget measure that senators approved during an overnight session last week, which would establish a pathway for complete department funding.

“DHS will soon run out of critical operating funds, placing essential personnel and operations at risk,” the memo said.

The administration’s urgent appeal may assist House Speaker Mike Johnson, whose slim Republican majority has been paralyzed by internal party disagreements on multiple pending matters, including the Homeland Security budget dispute that has brought legislative progress to a near halt.

The House is anticipated to vote Wednesday on the Senate budget measure designed to initiate a complex procedure that would eventually restore department funding. The administration cautioned GOP members against proposing modifications that could delay approval.

“Restoring funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has never been more urgent, as demonstrated by recent events,” the memo said, referencing last weekend’s incident when an armed individual attempted to breach the annual White House correspondents’ dinner attended by Trump, the vice president, and senior Cabinet members.

The Department of Homeland Security has operated without standard funding for more than two months following Democrats’ refusal to authorize Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol funding without operational reforms after fatalities occurred during protests against Trump’s deportation policies.

Immigration enforcement personnel have primarily received compensation through additional funding — approximately $170 billion — that Congress authorized as part of Trump’s tax reduction legislation last year. However, other employees, including TSA staff, have depended on Trump’s executive intervention to guarantee their wages.

With payroll expenses exceeding $1.6 billion biweekly, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin recently indicated those emergency funds are diminishing.

Congressional Republicans from both chambers have pursued an independent approach, seeking to approve Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol funding without Democratic support. Their goal is securing $70 billion for immigration operations throughout Trump’s remaining term to prevent future disruptions.

This complex procedure, identical to the method used for Trump’s tax legislation last year, will unfold across several weeks.

The Senate initiated the process last week and now awaits House action. After the budget resolution receives approval, both chambers must develop the actual funding legislation, which typically requires weeks to complete.

Meanwhile, Johnson is expected to quickly address legislation this week that would fund remaining Homeland Security components, including TSA, the Coast Guard, and other agencies.

This bipartisan measure has Democratic backing and already cleared the Senate a month ago, when Republicans reluctantly agreed to separate the immigration-related funding that Democrats opposed. However, House progress has stalled as Republicans in that chamber disagreed with the Senate’s strategy.

A fresh national survey has uncovered a striking pattern in American news consumption habits: roughly 60% of adults across the country make deliberate efforts to sidestep coverage of President Donald Trump either frequently or occasionally.

The research, conducted by the Media Insight Project, reveals sharp contrasts between political affiliations when it comes to news engagement and emotional responses to media coverage.

Take Denver resident Don Cohen, a 72-year-old retiree who dedicates approximately two and a half hours daily to news consumption through his iPad and television broadcasts. Despite his extensive media habits, Cohen acknowledges his desire to escape Trump-related stories.

“It would be to avoid media,” Cohen explained. The independent voter has maintained his opposition to Trump since the 2016 presidential campaign announcement.

The survey data indicates that Democrats and Republicans experience vastly different emotional reactions to news consumption. Republican voters are significantly more inclined to describe their news intake as providing an optimistic worldview, while Democratic voters rarely report feeling hopeful after consuming media.

David Sterrett, who serves as a principal research scientist at the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and participated in the project, suggests Democrats might be engaging in unrealistic expectations about avoiding Trump coverage.

“They would like to avoid Trump news, but they’re probably not because most national politics news is somewhat connected to the president,” Sterrett observed.

The research found that Democratic voters demonstrate greater confidence in media organizations, especially national news outlets, compared to their Republican counterparts. Democrats also show higher rates of regular engagement with national political coverage.

However, Republicans express more positive feelings about their news consumption, while Democrats frequently describe media as overly stressful to engage with.

Approximately two-thirds of both Democratic and independent voters report making active attempts to avoid Trump-related stories either often or sometimes. Fernando Ocegueda, a 50-year-old phlebotomist from Los Angeles and registered Democrat, recently reduced his political news consumption for this exact reason.

“I don’t agree with his decisions,” Ocegueda said regarding the president. “I don’t think he’s fit, so I don’t even want to bother in paying attention to what he has to say.”

Cohen believes the president has generated widespread instability that triggers defensive responses in many Americans. He theorizes this anxiety paradoxically drives continued news consumption.

“People don’t want to know, but they sort of want to know, because of the imminent sense of threat that is attached to him,” Cohen explained. “You know it’s a train wreck, and you just can’t take your eyes off of it.”

The avoidance pattern extends beyond Democratic voters. Roughly half of Republican respondents also reported frequently or occasionally trying to avoid Trump news coverage. Nicole Pratt, who describes herself as a moderate Republican, exemplifies this group.

The 62-year-old Torrance, California resident supports certain Trump administration initiatives and wants to stay informed, but has grown weary of stories focusing on what she perceives as presidential narcissism.

“His fights with other people, his arguments — I don’t bother with that anymore,” Pratt stated. “It’s like, I have other things to do.”

Sterrett suggests some Republicans claim to avoid Trump news not from fatigue with the president, but from distrust of conventional media sources.

“A lot of his followers do get news directly from him via social media, and his posts and announcements,” he noted.

Social media serves as a daily news source for approximately 40% of both Republican and Democratic voters, though both groups acknowledge the platform’s problems with accuracy.

Most voters from both parties assign significant responsibility to social media users for spreading false information about current events and important topics.

The parties diverge when assigning blame elsewhere. About 75% of Democrats hold politicians highly responsible for misinformation spread, compared to 65% of Republicans. Additionally, 64% of Democrats place substantial blame on social media companies like Facebook, Meta, X, and YouTube, while only 53% of Republicans share this view.

A majority of Democrats (58%) also attribute considerable responsibility for misinformation to artificial intelligence companies developing chatbots. Fewer Republicans (47%) view AI companies as responsible.

Meanwhile, most Republicans point to national news media as bearing significant responsibility for spreading false information about events and issues. Approximately half of Democrats agree with this assessment.

Independent voters show less overall engagement with news compared to party-affiliated Americans. About 80% of both Democrats and Republicans regularly follow various news topics, while only around 70% of independents maintain similar habits.

Beyond Trump-related coverage, voters from both parties show similar patterns in avoiding celebrity news, general news, or news on specific devices like social media or smartphones. Most Americans from both political sides occasionally try to avoid news discussions with friends and family.

Despite partisan differences in news preferences, Sterrett notes the survey reveals some common ground. Americans from both parties show similar interest in following sports, weather, and crime coverage.

“Especially when it comes to local issues and the stuff that affects people’s daily lives, it does seem like Republicans and Democrats are following similar sources and following similar topics,” Sterrett concluded.

The Media Insight Project represents a collaboration between the American Press Institute, Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism, the Local News Network at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism, and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The survey included 2,101 Americans: 1,092 adults aged 18 and older, plus 1,009 teenagers aged 13-17, though partisan questions were limited to adults. Adult polling occurred February 5-8, while teen polling ran February 2-16 using NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points for adults and plus or minus 4.3 percentage points for teenagers.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri residents will confront an extraordinary decision at the ballot box this November that no other state voters have faced in more than 100 years: whether to completely phase out their state’s individual income tax.

This historic ballot measure represents the first instance since modern income taxation began that a state legislature has directly asked citizens to eliminate their income tax entirely. Approval would simultaneously authorize lawmakers to broaden the state’s sales tax base.

This groundbreaking proposal represents the culmination of a nationwide five-year period of aggressive tax reduction efforts across states that benefited from surplus revenues during the post-COVID economic recovery. That trend only recently slowed as some Democratic-controlled states moved toward higher tax rates for wealthy residents. Throughout this period, nearly every state implemented either temporary or permanent reductions to various taxes including income, sales, property, or gasoline levies. More than half of all states with income taxes lowered their highest tax rates.

Unlike previous tax reduction efforts, Missouri’s approach openly recognizes the challenge of eliminating income tax revenue without finding alternative funding sources to maintain government operations.

Federal income taxation authority was established through the 16th Amendment’s ratification in 1913. Missouri followed suit with its own income tax in 1917, joining many states that adopted similar measures in subsequent years.

However, several states including Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming never implemented individual income taxes, instead depending on sales taxes, oil revenues, or other funding mechanisms. New Hampshire and Tennessee, which previously taxed investment income but not wages, both eliminated those taxes within the last five years.

Alaska stands alone as the only state to have implemented and later abolished a general individual income tax, eliminating it in 1980 during a period of substantial oil revenue.

Massachusetts citizens voted down income tax elimination proposals in both 2008 and 2002, though those measures originated from citizen initiatives rather than budget-responsible lawmakers.

Kentucky passed legislation in 2022 that reduced income tax rates and established revenue-based milestones that could gradually eliminate the tax entirely. The law also extended sales tax coverage to services like personal fitness training and website design. However, these revenue triggers require legislative approval for each additional rate reduction.

Mississippi enacted legislation last year that gradually decreases income tax rates from 4% to 3% by 2030, with revenue growth benchmarks that could trigger further cuts. Complete elimination could take more than a decade if all benchmarks are achieved.

Oklahoma also passed legislation last year establishing gradual income tax rate reductions tied to revenue growth until complete phase-out. The state won’t determine until next year whether it has met the revenue threshold for the initial rate reduction.

South Carolina recently joined this movement when Republican Governor Henry McMaster signed legislation last month that could eventually eliminate individual income tax as revenues increase.

Missouri’s proposed constitutional amendment instructs the General Assembly to eliminate individual income tax through gradual reductions based on revenue growth. To facilitate this transition, it grants lawmakers authority to generate revenue by applying sales tax to “any goods and services,” bypassing a constitutional restriction on sales tax base expansion that voters approved in 2016.

Lawmakers would have five years to determine which additional sales to tax without requiring another public vote.

However, some voters may not understand they are authorizing expanded sales taxes. The ballot language asks whether to phase out income tax and “modify” sales tax, avoiding terms like “increase” or “expand.”

The amendment, approved by the legislature last week, will appear on November’s ballot unless Republican Governor Mike Kehoe schedules an earlier election.

Governor Kehoe has prioritized individual income tax repeal, contending it will stimulate economic growth while attracting businesses and new residents.

During a House committee hearing this year, Will Spartin testified that although he attended business college in St. Louis, he established his beverage company headquarters in Florida due to that state’s lack of individual income tax. He expressed interest in returning to Missouri, but only if financially viable.

“If Missouri moves in this direction, even gradually, it would be a meaningful signal to people like us that Missouri wants to compete for modern industries,” Spartin told lawmakers.

Sharon Wells, a retired elementary school teacher from suburban St. Louis, reported paying several hundred dollars in state income tax this past year. She worries her total tax burden could increase if income tax is replaced with broader sales tax coverage.

Wells employs lawn care services, visits a hair salon twice monthly, and requires periodic medical, dental, and automotive maintenance services. None of these services currently face taxation, but all could under Missouri’s proposal.

“I think it’s a huge mistake,” she said. “We’re already paying far more than we have in the past for groceries, medicine, all kind of services. Everything has gone up.”

According to estimates from the nonprofit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, families earning between $49,000 and $78,000 annually would pay an average of $535 more in taxes if Missouri repeals its income tax and implements higher sales taxes. Lower-income earners would face even larger increases, the organization stated.

“Pretty clearly, this is going to be a tax increase for most people,” said Carl Davis, the institute’s research director.

Additional data indicates that income tax policies, while not the primary factor, can influence interstate migration patterns. Texas, Florida, and Tennessee all ranked among the top five states for net interstate migration of federal income tax filers in 2023, while higher-tax states California, New York, and New Jersey ranked near the bottom, according to IRS data analysis by the nonprofit Tax Foundation.

If Missouri voters approve this referendum, “it could embolden other states to accelerate their own planned income tax reductions,” said Katherine Loughead, the foundation’s director of state tax projects.

A top Republican lawmaker in the House of Representatives has summoned the leader of a prominent civil rights organization to appear before Congress next month after federal prosecutors brought criminal charges against the group.

Representative Jim Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, sent a formal request Tuesday to Bryan Fair, the interim president and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center, asking him to appear at a May 20, 2026 committee hearing.

The request comes after the Trump administration secured a criminal indictment against the SPLC last week, alleging the organization misled its financial supporters by employing paid sources to penetrate far-right groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors political extremist movements across the country, has dismissed the charges, calling them “false allegations.”

In his letter to Fair, Jordan stated the hearing would investigate how the SPLC “has played in distorting federal civil rights policy in recent years.” The Republican congressman also accused the organization of presenting a “highly partisan understanding of ‘hate’” that targets conservative viewpoints in its research on extremism in America.

Civil rights advocates have expressed concern about what they describe as the current administration’s campaign against organizations that advocate for civil rights and challenge government policies.

The 55-year-old organization had maintained a long-standing relationship with federal law enforcement agencies, regularly providing intelligence to the FBI and other agencies, until the Trump administration severed those connections six months ago.

SPLC officials defend their informant operations, stating the program has “saved lives” and was conducted with full knowledge of federal authorities. They note that the FBI similarly employs paid sources in its own investigative work.

During a White House state dinner on Tuesday, President Donald Trump brought up Middle East tensions while claiming that Britain’s King Charles shares his opposition to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

The remarks occurred on the second day of King Charles’s four-day official visit to the United States, coming at a time when diplomatic relations have been strained due to Trump’s repeated public criticism of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer regarding what the president characterizes as insufficient support in the Iran conflict.

Speaking to dinner guests, Trump addressed ongoing Middle East operations, stating: “We’re doing a little Middle East work right now and we’re doing very well.”

The president continued: “We have militarily defeated that particular opponent, and we’re never going to let that opponent ever — Charles agrees with me even more than I do — we’re never going to let that opponent have a nuclear weapon.”

When King Charles spoke following the president’s remarks, he avoided any discussion of Iran or Middle Eastern conflicts. As the British monarch, King Charles does not serve as a government spokesperson for official policy positions.

The British Embassy in Washington directed inquiries about Trump’s dinner comments to Buckingham Palace, which had not provided a response by press time.

Earlier in the day, during an address to Congress, King Charles avoided direct references to the Iran situation but touched on Trump’s NATO critiques, emphasized the need for continued American support for Ukraine against Russia, and warned against isolationist policies.

For years, both the United States and Britain have consistently maintained their position that Tehran must not develop nuclear weapons capabilities.

Iran, which currently does not possess nuclear weapons, continues to deny pursuing such capabilities while asserting its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear technology for peaceful civilian purposes, including uranium enrichment.

The Biden administration is reportedly working on new guidelines that would enable government agencies to work around safety warnings when implementing artificial intelligence systems, according to a report published Tuesday by Axios.

The proposed guidance would specifically allow federal departments to move forward with AI model adoption despite supply-chain risk warnings from Anthropic, an AI safety company. Among the systems that could be affected is an AI model called Mythos.

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

TACOMA, Wash. — Washington state officials filed a federal court petition Tuesday seeking to compel private prison company The Geo Group to permit state health inspectors access to its immigration detention facility in Tacoma, following years of detainee complaints about conditions.

State health department officials have been repeatedly turned away from the Northwest ICE Processing Center, where The Geo Group houses immigrants under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to Gov. Bob Ferguson, who spoke at a press conference outside the facility Tuesday. The center can house approximately 1,600 individuals awaiting deportation proceedings.

Washington enacted legislation in 2023 establishing its “broad authority to enforce generally applicable health and safety laws against contractors operating private detention facilities.” The Geo Group challenged the statute in court, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the law’s validity. The company has until June 11 to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

“Despite the mandate of the court and the seriousness of the problem, The Geo Group continues to defy our law by refusing to admit DOH inspectors,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said during the press conference. “In my view, this is not just a legal obligation. It is a moral obligation.”

When contacted by The Associated Press, The Geo Group declined to provide comment and directed inquiries to ICE, which did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

Officials report receiving approximately 3,500 complaints from facility detainees over recent years, with nearly 1,000 concerning water, food and air quality issues. Detainees have reported finding burned plastic, splinters, hair, worms and other foreign materials in their food, while also complaining about foul-tasting water.

Ferguson stated that health inspectors have been denied entry during all 10 attempted visits since the law took effect. The most recent rejection occurred April 20 when inspectors sought to examine the water system. Since Tacoma’s municipal water supply meets quality standards, officials suspect potential problems with the detention center’s internal plumbing maintenance.

According to the state’s court filing, inspectors were instructed to contact ICE’s Seattle field office, despite having previously attempted that approach without success.

WASHINGTON – During Tuesday’s formal White House reception for King Charles and Queen Camilla, President Donald Trump reflected on how the forebears of both leaders would be amazed to witness “the Anglo-American revolution in human freedom” enduring into modern times.

Following his remarks, Trump moved away from the podium to greet Charles with a handshake, and the two leaders shared a moment of laughter. The White House later shared a photograph of their interaction with the caption “TWO KINGS.”

This marks another instance of Trump embracing royal symbolism during his current presidency. Last October, he shared an artificial intelligence-created video showing himself crowned and flying a military aircraft over protesters displaying “No Kings” signs – demonstrations that Republican congressional leaders have labeled “Hate America” gatherings.

In the video, Trump’s depicted character releases waste material onto the crowd below. That same day, he posted additional AI content portraying himself in royal regalia including a crown, ceremonial cape, and sword while Democratic lawmakers bowed before him.

The historical context adds irony to the “Two Kings” reference, as American colonists fought an eight-year independence struggle against Charles’ ancestor King George III starting in 1775. The Declaration of Independence in 1776 accused the British crown of “repeated injuries and usurpations” aimed at establishing “absolute Tyranny over these States.”

“One interesting difference between America and the UK is the people are the sovereign. We don’t have one person that’s sovereign,” said Representative Joe Morelle, a New York Democrat, speaking to Reuters. “I don’t think the president, respectfully, understands that difference.”

White House representatives did not provide immediate responses to requests for comment. The presidential couple is hosting Charles and Camilla for an official state dinner Tuesday night.

During his address to Congress earlier Tuesday, King Charles highlighted the nations’ common heritage and democratic values, referencing the Magna Carta, Britain’s 1689 Declaration of Rights, and America’s 1791 Bill of Rights to emphasize that “executive power is subject to checks and balances.”

When questioned about accusations of monarchical behavior during a CBS “60 Minutes” interview following Saturday’s thwarted assassination attempt, Trump dismissed the claims.

“I’m not a king,” Trump told correspondent Norah O’Donnell. “If I was a king, I wouldn’t be dealing with you.”

The Trump administration has implemented stricter background check requirements for individuals seeking immigration benefits, according to internal documents from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services obtained by news outlets.

USCIS staff received direction to halt approval of any pending immigration cases until applicants complete the expanded security screenings. The new protocol took effect April 27, 2026.

“Effective April 27, 2026, USCIS will begin receiving enhanced criminal history record information (CHRI) for all fingerprint-based background checks submitted to the FBI’s Next Generation Identification system,” stated an internal email sent to USCIS personnel in the Refugee, Asylum and International Operations division last week.

The immigration enforcement measures represent part of President Trump’s broader initiative to tighten border security and reduce unauthorized immigration since returning to office in early 2025.

Critics including human rights organizations, civil liberties advocates and faith leaders have denounced the administration’s approach, arguing it undermines constitutional protections and creates a hostile atmosphere for minority communities.

The heightened screening requirements stem from a February executive order that instructed the Department of Homeland Security to “access criminal history record information (CHRI) in the custody of federal criminal justice agencies to the maximum extent permitted by law.”

Applications requiring fingerprint submission will face delays under the new policy, including requests for permanent residency status and citizenship processing.

Immigration officers must resubmit fingerprint data for cases where FBI records were obtained before the April 27 deadline, internal guidance specified.

A USCIS representative told media outlets that the agency “has implemented new security checks to strengthen the vetting and screening of applicants through expanded access to federal criminal databases.”

Officials indicated that “any delay in decision issuance should be brief and resolved shortly.”

PHOENIX — A federal court on Tuesday threw out a Justice Department legal action against Arizona that sought to compel the state to hand over comprehensive voter registration records, marking another courtroom defeat for federal officials in their nationwide push to access voter information.

U.S. District Judge Susan Brnovich, who was appointed during the Trump presidency, determined that Arizona’s comprehensive voter registration database does not fall under materials that federal law allows the Attorney General to demand. The judge ruled against the lawsuit permanently, stating that any modifications to the case would serve no legal purpose.

This Arizona decision continues a pattern of judicial rejections facing the Justice Department in comparable litigation across multiple states. Federal prosecutors have initiated legal action against no fewer than 30 states plus Washington D.C., attempting to compel the release of comprehensive voter information that encompasses birth dates, home addresses, driver’s license identification numbers, and portions of Social Security numbers.

Beyond Arizona, courts have turned down these federal efforts in Rhode Island, California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Oregon. In Georgia, a judge threw out a Justice Department case due to improper venue selection, forcing federal attorneys to restart their case in a different jurisdiction.

The Justice Department initiated legal proceedings against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes in January after he refused to comply with federal demands for the comprehensive voter data.

“This moment is a win for voter privacy,” Fontes said in a statement. “I will never comply with illegal requests that put Arizona voters in harms way.”

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

According to research by the Brennan Center and Associated Press coverage, no fewer than 13 states have either delivered or agreed to deliver their comprehensive voter registration databases to federal authorities: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

Federal authorities claim they require the voter information to verify that states are following federal election regulations concerning voter registration list maintenance. During the Rhode Island litigation, a Justice Department lawyer admitted the department wanted complete voter roll data to share with the Department of Homeland Security for citizenship verification purposes.

Officials from both major political parties have opposed these federal demands, arguing such requests breach state and federal privacy protections.

WASHINGTON — Republican senators voted down Democratic-sponsored legislation Tuesday that would have forced President Donald Trump to obtain congressional authorization before continuing America’s energy embargo against Cuba.

The war powers resolution vote demonstrated continued GOP support for Trump’s unilateral approach to international conflicts across multiple regions, including Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba — a nearby Caribbean nation that has remained a long-standing U.S. opponent.

Democratic lawmakers have repeatedly attempted to pass measures limiting the president’s military authority in these conflicts, though all previous efforts have failed. Tuesday marked the first Cuba-focused vote, which would have mandated congressional approval before any military strikes against the island.

GOP senators successfully dismissed the measure by claiming it was procedurally improper since America isn’t directly fighting Cuba. The dismissal motion passed 51-47, with Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman as the sole Democratic supporter, while Maine’s Susan Collins and Kentucky’s Rand Paul were the only Republicans opposing dismissal.

Cuba currently faces severe water and electricity shortages as U.S. sanctions continue and oil deliveries from Venezuela remain blocked. The Trump administration maintains pressure on Cuban leaders to stop political oppression, free political detainees, and reform the struggling economy.

Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine, who sponsored the resolution, described the embargo as creating “humanitarian crises across Cuba,” disrupting healthcare services, leaving millions without potable water, and driving up food costs.

“My argument is that under the terms of the resolution we are already engaged in hostilities with Cuba because we are using American force, primarily the Coast Guard, but other assets as well, to engage in a very devastating economic blockade of the nation,” Kaine said.

During a recent Turning Points USA gathering, Trump promised “a new dawn for Cuba” and indicated the island would receive his focus following the Iran conflict.

Democratic senators emphasized the resolution’s importance in preventing potential military action against Cuba.

“The United States and Cuba need to find a way to peacefully coexist,” said Vermont Democrat Peter Welch.

Democrats have consistently used the 1973 War Powers Act to challenge Trump’s military decisions, legislation originally designed to strengthen congressional authority over war declarations.

Florida Republican Rick Scott criticized Democrats for overlooking Cuban leadership’s human rights violations.

“President Trump is doing everything he can to bring back freedom and democracy all across Latin America, and we should do everything we can to support him,” Scott said.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Tuesday declaring that digital voting records from individual ballots must be treated as public information, granting access to “cast vote records” that an election researcher working for the Trump Administration had sought last year.

The court’s Democratic majority stated their decision aimed to “satisfy the voting public that our elections are safe, secure and accurate” while upholding constitutional protections for ballot secrecy.

Election officials in Lycoming County’s Williamsport office had rejected Heather Honey’s application for electronic copies from the 2020 presidential race, claiming such access would essentially permit examination of individual ballot contents. These cast vote records generate automatically when voters make selections electronically or through scanned paper ballots.

State election statutes grant broad public access to county voting records, with exceptions for ballot box contents, voting machine data, and documentation related to voters who received assistance. Lycoming’s election office had contended that their scanning and tabulation equipment qualified as voting machines, making the cast vote records equivalent to protected ballot box contents.

When Honey’s non-resident status in Lycoming County became an issue, three local Williamsport residents took over the legal challenge — including a business owner, a former state police officer, and Republican state Representative Joe Hamm.

Attorney Thomas Breth, representing the plaintiffs, argued the information would enable citizens to examine what occurred during the contentious 2020 election cycle.

“In short, it’s not solely about the past,” Breth said. “It’s about the future. This significantly improves election integrity moving forward in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

Lycoming’s election supervisor Forrest Lehman stated Tuesday that he believes the records, which contain scrambled data, will not compromise any confidential voting information and expressed readiness to fulfill requests for the materials.

“The court made its decision, and anybody who wants it can have at it,” Lehman said.

The Supreme Court determined that cast vote records “are spreadsheets of raw data pulled from the cast ballots. They are not the physical ballots contained in the ballot box.” This classification makes them public records, the justices reasoned: “This interpretation does not destroy the secrecy of the vote any more than a tally of all votes from a specific election.”

The court emphasized its ruling applied specifically to the Lycoming County situation and noted that other counties might not adequately scramble their data. “Whether the Election Code requires disclosure of CVRs that clearly link the contents of a ballot with personally identifying data is not before us,” Justice Daniel McCaffery wrote.

Breth rejected concerns about voter privacy, explaining that Pennsylvania’s current voting equipment standards mandate protections for voter anonymity.

LOS ANGELES — Eight contenders seeking California’s top executive office are gearing up for another televised face-off Tuesday evening as the state prepares to send out mail-in ballots within the coming week.

The mix of Democratic and Republican hopefuls — many still unfamiliar to much of the electorate — will attempt to convince voters they should succeed outgoing Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who cannot run for a third consecutive term.

The battle for leadership in America’s largest state by population comes as Sacramento grapples with persistent homelessness issues, wildfire insurance availability problems, anticipated budget deficits, and astronomical housing prices. Residents are simultaneously dealing with rising expenses for food, utilities, and fuel.

The hour-and-a-half forum will feature the top two GOP contenders, conservative media personality Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, alongside six Democratic candidates: former U.S. Representative Katie Porter, wealthy businessman Tom Steyer, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, former Biden administration Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, ex-Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and state education chief Tony Thurmond.

Porter told her supporters via email that she planned to take the stage “to fight for lowering costs for working families and Californians.”

“Because right now, Californians are getting crushed,” Porter stated.

A previous debate held last week, which did not include Villaraigosa and Thurmond, failed to produce any decisive moments or clear winners among the participants.

President Donald Trump — whose relationship with the heavily blue state has been consistently tense — will likely feature prominently in Tuesday’s discussion once again. Both Hilton and Bianco back the president, with Hilton receiving Trump’s official endorsement, while Democratic contenders have pledged to resist federal immigration enforcement operations and Trump’s conservative policy agenda.

California’s primary system places all candidates on one ballot, with the top two vote-getters advancing to November’s general election regardless of party affiliation. Democrats worry their large field of candidates could allow two Republicans to move forward, which would represent an unprecedented disaster for the party.

The Democratic Party has controlled California’s state government for many years. No Republican has won a statewide race in two decades, and Democratic voter registration exceeds Republican registration by approximately two-to-one across the state.

Steyer, a former hedge fund executive who became a progressive political activist, has spent heavily from his personal wealth on television advertisements but has not separated himself from other candidates.

The campaign landscape shifted significantly earlier this month following the dramatic exit of U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell amid sexual assault allegations. His departure from both the race and Congress removed what had been considered one of the frontrunning campaigns.

CBS will host the debate, broadcasting it on its California television stations and online platforms.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge hearing a case that could determine the fate of Washington’s Kennedy Center challenged the Trump administration’s decision to completely shut down the renowned performing arts facility for two years of renovations beginning in July.

During Tuesday’s court session, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper pressed government representatives on their rationale for the total closure, questioning whether adequate research supported such a drastic measure.

The hearing marked the first of two consecutive court proceedings addressing legal challenges to Kennedy Center changes. Judge Cooper refrained from immediate action after extensively questioning lawyers from both sides, leaving his eventual ruling uncertain.

Cooper pressed government attorney Brantley Mayers about missing financial analysis regarding the closure’s economic impact, including lost sponsorships, canceled bookings, and revenue shortfalls. “I didn’t see any numbers,” the judge stated.

The judge also inquired why the government rejected phased renovation approaches, noting this had been the “status quo” before the administration abruptly shifted toward complete closure.

The legal challenge stems from a lawsuit filed by Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat serving as an ex officio Kennedy Center trustee. Beatty’s case, originally filed last year against President Trump and other administration officials, expanded in February to contest the two-year closure plan.

Trump has focused considerable attention on the Kennedy Center since returning to office, removing previous leadership and installing a handpicked board that appointed him chairman. These changes sparked criticism from numerous artists and worsened the venue’s financial difficulties. Trump’s name was subsequently added to the building’s exterior, and he announced the renovation project earlier this year.

Judge Cooper devoted over half the two-hour session to questioning Nathaniel Zelinsky, senior counsel at the Washington Litigation Group, about technical aspects of Beatty’s legal standing to pursue the lawsuit.

The judge postponed any immediate decisions, including potential injunctions against the center’s name modification.

During proceedings, Norm Eisen, a Democracy Defenders Action board member serving as co-counsel with Zelinsky, cited numerous statutory references establishing the intended name as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

After the hearing, Beatty expressed concerns about potential changes during closure. “We went through the same thing at the White House. I was right outside there when we saw the bulldozers,” she said, referencing Trump’s modifications to the East Wing and Rose Garden.

Despite assurances from new executive director Matt Floca about appropriate renovation practices, Beatty said she doesn’t trust the president’s approach.

A second hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, addressing a separate lawsuit filed by eight cultural preservation organizations also opposing the closure and renovation plans.

Cooper indicated he wants specific questions answered at Wednesday’s hearing, particularly regarding what happens to Kennedy Center operations during closure, including whether any public access would remain available.

Governor JB Pritzker of Illinois recently participated in a discussion with NPR correspondent Scott Detrow about ongoing investigations into federal immigration enforcement operations in Chicago.

The conversation centered around public hearings being conducted by the Illinois Accountability Commission, which is examining federal immigration enforcement activities within the Chicago area.

The commission’s hearings are part of a broader investigation into what has been termed Operation Midway Blitz, focusing on federal immigration enforcement practices and their impact on local communities.

A prominent religious broadcasting organization has petitioned federal communications regulators to examine ABC Television following controversial statements made by late-night host Jimmy Kimmel about First Lady Melania Trump.

The National Religious Broadcasters organization submitted the complaint to the Federal Communications Commission, expressing worry that Kimmel’s comments could encourage political violence or make such acts seem acceptable.

The controversy stems from Kimmel’s April 23, 2026 show, where he performed what he described as a mock version of the upcoming White House Correspondents’ Dinner. During his routine, Kimmel addressed the First Lady directly, stating: “Our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have the glow of an expectant widow.”

Two days following the broadcast, on April 25, 2026, when the actual White House Correspondents’ Dinner occurred, someone attempted to attack President Trump and other federal officials. This incident represents the third attempt on the President’s life during this timeframe, occurring amid a backdrop of other violent incidents including prominent political assassinations and numerous school shootings nationwide.

First Lady Melania Trump addressed the situation through a social media post on X, declaring: “It’s time for ABC to take a stand” concerning Kimmel. She continued: “Enough is enough. Kimmel’s rhetoric is designed to divide our country.”

In a follow-up statement, she wrote: “His monologue about my family is not comedy, and it deepens the political sickness within America. People like Kimmel should not be given the opportunity to enter our homes every evening to spread hate.”

The religious broadcasters’ legal representative, General Counsel Michael Farris, argued that current laws permit restrictions on speech that promotes violence. “While the FCC is bound by the First Amendment of the Constitution and federal law (47 U.S.C. § 326) to respect freedom of speech, Supreme Court precedent makes clear that speech which incites violence is not protected. Under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), speech loses constitutional protection when it encourages lawless action, is intended to produce such action, and is likely to result in imminent harm.”

Troy A. Miller, who serves as President and CEO of the National Religious Broadcasters, expressed concerns about escalating violence patterns across the nation. “We should be relieved that lives were spared Saturday evening; but relief can’t become complacency. We’re seeing a pattern of violence in this country that didn’t appear overnight.”

Miller further explained the organization’s position: “When influential voices joke about death or treat political opponents as disposable, it contributes to a culture where violence feels thinkable to the already unstable. National platforms carry real weight, and with that comes responsibility. That’s why this warranted action.”

The religious broadcasting group has requested that the FCC conduct a comprehensive investigation to establish whether any federal regulations or commission guidelines were violated by the broadcast.

WASHINGTON — Federal attorneys are seeking dismissal of a lawsuit challenging a proposed $400 million White House ballroom project, but their court document employs language typically associated with President Trump’s social media communications rather than traditional legal writing.

Monday’s Justice Department submission contains numerous characteristics common in Trump’s written statements, including unusual capitalization patterns, exclamation marks, tangential remarks, rhetorical questioning, presidential praise, and claims that critics are mentally unstable.

The 16-page document, bearing the signatures of acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, demonstrates how significantly the president has broken down the traditional barrier of independence between the Justice Department and White House operations.

“The National Trust for Historic Preservation’ is a beautiful name, but even their name is FAKE because when they add the words ‘in the United States’ to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, it makes it sound like a Governmental Agency, which it is not,” opens the filing’s initial statement.

The preservation organization initiated legal action in December following the White House’s demolition of the East Wing to create space for Trump’s proposed ballroom designed to accommodate 999 guests. While Trump claims private donations fund the construction, taxpayer money covers security enhancements and underground bunker installation.

The organization’s legal challenge contends that Trump exceeded his executive powers by advancing the construction without securing Congressional approval and necessary federal agency clearances.

Following Saturday’s shooting incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Trump and Republican allies have intensified their advocacy for the ballroom, claiming the event demonstrates the necessity for a protected venue capable of hosting large gatherings. Federal attorneys requested the Trust abandon its legal challenge, but the organization refused.

“What Saturday’s awful event does not change is that the Constitution and multiple federal statutes require Congress to authorize construction of a ballroom on White House grounds, and that Congress has not done so,” responded Trust attorney Gregory Craig in his reply to government representatives.

Monday’s Justice Department motion argues the court should reject the lawsuit, claiming it “greatly endangers the lives of all Presidents, current and future.”

When questioned about the court submission, White House officials did not dispute presidential involvement in creating or revising the Justice Department’s legal arguments.

“President Trump is intimately involved in the ongoing disgraceful lawsuit brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and is working diligently with his team of lawyers to bring this charade to an end,” stated White House spokesman Davis Ingle.

Justice Department representatives did not provide comment when contacted.

Tuesday morning saw Trump sharing the filing across social media platforms, posting images of all 16 pages without additional commentary.

The legal document describes the Trust as “very bad for our Country,” echoing language frequently employed by the president. The submission twice alleges the Trust suffers from “Trump Derangement Syndrome, commonly referred to as TDS,” a fictional condition the president regularly assigns to his detractors.

The filing references Trust attorney Craig — formerly White House Counsel — as “the lawyer for Barack Hussein Obama.” Trump has consistently used the former president’s complete legal name, language that echoes his historical challenges to Obama’s allegiances, religious beliefs, and American birth.

Federal attorneys additionally claimed that “because it is DONALD J. TRUMP, a highly successful real estate developer, who has abilities that others don’t, especially those who assume the Office of President, this frivolous and meritless lawsuit was filed. Again, it’s called TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.”

WASHINGTON — Federal officials announced Tuesday they will launch a special edition of U.S. passports featuring President Donald Trump’s photograph to mark the nation’s 250th anniversary celebration, making him the first sitting president to appear in the official travel documents.

The commemorative passport design, which includes Trump’s portrait, underwent months of review before receiving final authorization on Monday evening. Initially, these special passports will only be distributed through the Washington D.C. passport facility and must be specifically requested by applicants. Citizens who prefer the traditional design can still obtain standard passports, according to government officials.

“As the United States celebrates America’s 250th anniversary in July, the State Department is preparing to release a limited number of specially designed U.S. passports to commemorate this historic occasion,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said. “These passports will feature customized artwork and enhanced imagery while maintaining the same security features that make the U.S. passport the most secure documents in the world.”

The anniversary edition will include Trump’s photograph on an internal page, while the cover design will be modified to display “United States of America” prominently in gold lettering at the top and “Passport” at the bottom — opposite from the current layout. A gold-foiled American flag bearing the number 250 surrounded by stars will appear on the back cover.

Currently, the only presidential figures shown in standard U.S. passports appear in a two-page spread depicting Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, featuring George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.

Regular passport pages showcase various American landmarks including the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall in Philadelphia, along with images of the Great Plains, mountain ranges and coastal areas. Standard passports also include quotes from civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. and former Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower.

WASHINGTON – Julie Davis, currently serving as interim U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, is departing her diplomatic role following disagreements with President Donald Trump, according to a Tuesday report from the Financial Times.

When contacted for verification regarding Davis’s reported exit from the ambassadorial position, the U.S. State Department had not yet provided a response.

WASHINGTON – Federal communications regulators announced Tuesday they are fast-tracking license renewal evaluations for eight television stations owned by Disney’s ABC network, advancing the process by more than six years ahead of schedule.

The Federal Communications Commission stated that the accelerated reviews stem from an ongoing 12-month investigation into the agency’s policies prohibiting unlawful discrimination in broadcasting. Originally scheduled to commence in October 2028, the license evaluations must now be submitted by Disney no later than May 28.

The television stations subject to the expedited review process operate in eight major metropolitan areas: Fresno, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia, Houston, and Durham, North Carolina.

The move represents a significant intensification of tensions between the previous Trump administration and major American media companies.

WASHINGTON – Federal prosecutors have filed criminal charges against a former National Institutes of Health official, accusing him of deliberately hiding records connected to COVID-19 research funding and using personal email accounts to conduct government work.

David Morens, who served as a senior administrator at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the coronavirus outbreak, was indicted by a Maryland grand jury on charges of working to conceal federal records requests that came to the agency from April 2020 through December 2022.

The criminal charges, which were initially filed under seal on April 16 before being made public Monday, also identify two unnamed co-conspirators described as a New York nonprofit organization that focuses on infectious disease work and a doctor affiliated with an academic institution that received NIH funding.

“As alleged in the indictment, Dr. Morens and his co-conspirators deliberately concealed information and falsified records in an effort to suppress alternative theories regarding the origins of COVID-19,” Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote in a statement announcing the charges on Tuesday.

Attempts to contact Morens’ representatives for a response to the allegations were unsuccessful.

The former NIH official is facing five separate criminal counts, including conspiracy charges, destroying or altering records during federal investigations, and concealing or damaging official documents.

This legal action represents the most recent move by Republican President Donald Trump’s current administration concerning questions about how the coronavirus pandemic began, which devastated global communities starting in late 2019 during Trump’s initial presidency.

The World Health Organization along with the majority of scientific experts believe the virus most likely jumped from animals to humans naturally. While investigations have been limited due to insufficient information from China, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded last year that a laboratory accident was the probable source.

A Republican-controlled Senate committee is currently investigating the pandemic’s beginnings, including demanding documents from the prestigious medical publication the Lancet.

Several Republican lawmakers have claimed that former NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci worked to silence theories suggesting COVID-19 escaped from a Chinese laboratory. Fauci has categorically rejected these accusations, stating before a House subcommittee in 2024 that he never attempted to shape research into the virus’s source.

Morens, who served as an advisor to Fauci, was summoned to provide testimony last year to the Republican-controlled COVID subcommittee, which obtained subpoenas for tens of thousands of his email communications, including correspondence with the NIAID director.

WASHINGTON — James Comey, who previously served as FBI Director, received an indictment Tuesday related to an investigation into a beach photograph he shared on social media, sources tell news outlets. Federal authorities believe the image, which showed seashells positioned to form the numbers “86 47,” represented a threat directed at President Donald Trump.

A source with knowledge of the situation, speaking anonymously because they lacked authorization to discuss the matter publicly, confirmed the charges to reporters. The specific nature and number of charges filed against Comey remain unclear at this time.

This marks the second time the Justice Department has pursued criminal action against Comey, a prominent critic of Trump. The former FBI chief stated he believed the shell arrangement he encountered during a beach walk represented a political statement rather than an incitement to violence. Comey joins several other Trump critics who have faced Justice Department investigations over the past year, as acting Attorney General Todd Blanche seeks to demonstrate his suitability for the permanent position.

Following complaints from Trump administration officials who claimed he was promoting Trump’s assassination, Comey sat for a Secret Service interview in May. Trump serves as the nation’s 47th president. Shortly after posting the image, Comey removed it and explained his actions in writing: “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence” and “I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

Attempts to reach Comey’s legal representative for comment Tuesday were unsuccessful.

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, which The Associated Press uses as reference, the term “86” serves as slang meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of” or “to refuse service to.” The dictionary notes: “Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of ‘to kill.’ We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.”

During a Fox News Channel appearance in May, Trump claimed Comey understood “exactly what that meant.”

“A child knows what that meant,” Trump stated. “If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination. And it says it loud and clear.”

Defense attorneys will likely argue the Trump administration is deliberately targeting Comey, given that the Justice Department has now brought a second case against the former FBI director just months after dismissing an unrelated previous indictment. Comey had supervised the initial stages of an investigation examining potential coordination between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia to influence that election’s results.

In September, prosecutors charged the former FBI director with lying to Congress and obstruction related to 2020 testimony about whether he had authorized sharing confidential investigation details with a reporter. Comey maintained his innocence, and a judge later dismissed the case after determining issues with the prosecutor who filed the charges.

When Trump assumed the presidency in 2017, Comey was already serving as FBI Director, having received his appointment from former President Barack Obama, a Democrat. Previously, he had held senior Justice Department roles during Republican President George W. Bush’s administration.

Their professional relationship faced difficulties from the beginning, particularly after Comey declined Trump’s request during a private meal to promise personal loyalty to the president — an approach that troubled the FBI director enough that he immediately wrote a detailed memo about the encounter.

In May 2017, Trump dismissed Comey while the FBI was investigating possible connections between Russia and Trump’s campaign for president. Special counsel Robert Mueller eventually assumed control of that investigation, which concluded that although Russia interfered in the 2016 election and Trump’s team welcomed such assistance, prosecutors lacked sufficient evidence to establish criminal conspiracy.

The department is simultaneously conducting a criminal investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan, another central figure from the Russia investigation — representing one of Trump’s primary complaints and a situation for which he and his allies have long desired retribution.

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors have brought criminal charges against a former top advisor to Dr. Anthony Fauci, alleging he deliberately hid communications about COVID-19 research during the pandemic, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

Dr. David Morens, 78, stands accused of deliberately using personal email to avoid public records requirements during his time at the National Institutes of Health. Prosecutors claim he hid or destroyed records of conversations about COVID-19 research funding, including efforts to restart a disputed coronavirus grant program.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche condemned the alleged actions in a Tuesday statement. “These allegations represent a profound abuse of trust at a time when the American people needed it most — during the height of a global pandemic,” Blanche said. “Government officials have a solemn duty to provide honest, well-grounded facts and advice in service of the public interest — not to advance their own personal or ideological agendas.”

The charges include conspiracy against the United States, destroying or falsifying federal investigation records, hiding or destroying government documents, and aiding others in these crimes, according to Justice Department officials. A conviction could result in decades behind bars. Morens’ legal representative chose not to provide a statement.

The criminal case validates Republican claims that federal agencies withheld crucial COVID-19 information as the pandemic developed. Despite extensive investigations, scientists still cannot definitively explain how COVID-19 began. Researchers remain divided on whether the virus spread naturally from animals or escaped from a laboratory. Intelligence agencies concluded in 2023 that available evidence cannot support either explanation.

According to Blanche, Morens’ alleged actions were designed to “suppress alternative theories” about how COVID-19 originated. Federal prosecutors also claim Morens maintained inappropriate relationships with research partners, including allegedly receiving wine as a gift and discussing COVID-19 studies and possible publication in major medical publications.

The criminal charges stem from House Republican investigations into COVID-19’s origins that examined Morens’ email records and accused him of deliberately hiding government documents. During congressional hearings, Morens rejected claims that he tried to avoid federal transparency requirements through personal email use.

WASHINGTON — Technology company Cisco appears headed for victory at the Supreme Court, where justices on Tuesday signaled they would likely dismiss a legal challenge brought by practitioners of the Falun Gong spiritual practice.

The high court is examining a lower court decision that permitted the case against Cisco to move forward in American courts.

Cisco maintains it should not face accountability under two distinct federal statutes for allegedly assisting in human rights abuses. These laws include the centuries-old Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act, which Congress passed in 1991.

The court’s conservative wing appeared focused on determining how sweeping their ruling for Cisco should be and whether federal judges are permitting too many comparable cases to advance. Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned at one point whether the courthouse entrance lacks proper security.

Over recent years, both the Supreme Court and White House administrations from both political parties have expressed doubt about litigation attempting to use American judicial venues to address foreign government actions, particularly those occurring overseas. To counter this reluctance, Falun Gong practitioners contend that significant portions of Cisco’s China-related operations occurred on American soil.

An Associated Press examination conducted last year revealed that American technology firms largely created China’s monitoring infrastructure, with encouragement from both Republican and Democratic governments, despite warnings from advocates that such systems were suppressing opposition, targeting religious communities, and persecuting ethnic minorities.

Leaked documents from 2008 revealed Cisco viewed China’s “Golden Shield” internet restriction program as a business opportunity. The corporation referenced a Chinese official who labeled Falun Gong an “evil cult.” A Cisco presentation from that period, examined by AP, claimed its systems could detect more than 90% of Falun Gong content online.

Additional presentations reviewed by AP demonstrate that Cisco characterized Falun Gong materials as dangerous and developed a nationwide tracking system to monitor practitioners. In 2011, Falun Gong members filed suit against Cisco, claiming the company customized technology for Beijing while understanding it would be used to locate, arrest, and abuse believers.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared most inclined to permit the case to proceed.

Cisco served as a cooperative ally with Chinese authorities, Sotomayor stated. “It knew that those people will be tortured,” she said.

Cisco attorney Kannon Shanmugam rejected this characterization. “Cisco vigorously disputes those allegations,” Shanmugam informed the justices.

The court’s ruling is anticipated in late June.

WASHINGTON – King Charles III and Queen Camilla were welcomed to the White House Tuesday morning by President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump during a ceremonial arrival that highlighted the enduring partnership between the United States and Britain, even as disagreements over Iran policy create strain.

The royal couple’s arrival on the South Lawn featured traditional pomp and ceremony, with hundreds of invited guests watching as cannons fired and smoke briefly filled the air while the national anthem played, the Washington Monument visible in the background.

Speaking to the assembled crowd beneath cloudy April skies, Trump quipped, “What a beautiful British day this is,” drawing laughter from the British delegation.

The four-day diplomatic visit aims to reinforce the historic bond between Britain and its former colony, a relationship that has developed over two and a half centuries since American independence and become known in modern times as the “special relationship.”

During his welcoming remarks, Trump called the monarch “a very elegant man” and made a lighthearted comment that his mother “had a crush on Charles.”

The president also reflected on how the two nations transformed from enemies to allies, referencing the Revolutionary War and its aftermath. “Think of that very, very long ago difficult war, and yet those wounds did indeed heal into the most cherished of friendships,” Trump stated.

He continued: “The soldiers who once called each other Red Coats and Yankees became the Tommies and the GIs who together saved the free world as brothers in arms and brothers in eternity,” alluding to their World War II alliance.

Following the White House ceremony, King Charles was set to deliver a significant address to Congress at 3 p.m., marking only the second time a British monarch has spoken to the legislative body. His late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, previously addressed Congress in 1991.

The king’s congressional speech will focus on shared democratic values, environmental protection, religious liberty, and the importance of promoting peace and compassion globally, while avoiding the political tensions between Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

According to a palace insider, despite occasional disagreements between the two countries, Charles will emphasize that “Time and again, our two countries have always found ways to come together.”

The visit occurs against a backdrop of diplomatic friction over the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, which Britain has declined to fully support, prompting repeated criticism from Trump. Additional tension arose from a Pentagon communication suggesting potential reconsideration of U.S. backing for Britain’s sovereignty claims over the Falkland Islands.

The Financial Times reported Tuesday that Britain’s U.S. Ambassador Christian Turner recently told British students that America’s only “special relationship” is “probably Israel,” and expressed dislike for the phrase as “quite nostalgic” with “a lot of baggage.” A Foreign Office representative clarified these were “private, informal comments” that don’t represent official government policy.

The approximately 20-minute congressional address will emphasize the strong connections between both nations and how their partnership benefits worldwide security and economic prosperity. However, it will also include subtle warnings against American isolationism and references to NATO and Ukraine support.

Trump’s administration has consistently pressed NATO allies to contribute more to operations against Iran and urged European nations to increase their financial commitment to Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression.

While prepared with British government input, much of the speech’s language and tone reflects Charles’s personal perspective, according to palace sources.

The king will also acknowledge Saturday’s shooting incident at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Tuesday evening’s state dinner will mark the first such event since Trump ordered demolition of the East Wing to construct his planned ballroom. With the traditional guest entrance now a construction site, attendees will use alternative routes into the building.

The royal itinerary continues Wednesday in New York City, where they will honor victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The visit concludes Thursday in Virginia, where Charles will meet with conservation advocates, reflecting his longtime environmental activism, before departing for Bermuda.

President Trump has overturned a federal prohibition on mining activities near Minnesota’s pristine Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, opening the door for a Chilean corporation to pursue extraction permits in the region rich with valuable minerals.

Conservation advocates worry this decision establishes a dangerous precedent that could eliminate protections for public lands nationwide. Twin Metals Minnesota LLC, owned by Chile’s Antofagasta Minerals, has sought to extract copper, nickel and other valuable metals from the Superior National Forest since 2019.

The wilderness canoe area sits within the national forest directly downstream from the proposed mining location, sparking fears that excavation activities could generate contamination threatening one of America’s few remaining pristine wild spaces.

The Biden administration established a two-decade mining prohibition in the national forest during 2023, halting Twin Metals’ development plans. However, Trump has advocated for expanding domestic energy and mineral extraction, and GOP lawmakers delivered him legislation to eliminate the prohibition this month, arguing the action would generate employment and revitalize Minnesota’s Iron Range mining sector. The president approved the measure Monday.

“Today is a dark day for America’s most beloved Wilderness area, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, and a stark warning call for public lands nationwide,” stated Ingrid Lyons, executive director of Save the Boundary Waters. “Minnesotans and the American public writ large have been loud and clear — this iconic place needs to be protected. Today, by the very people who claim to represent them, they were ignored, and even worse, silenced. But of course, it’s not over, and we will always keep fighting.”

Twin Metals representative Kathy Graul told The Associated Press that removing the prohibition opens opportunities to strengthen mineral supply networks, while emphasizing the company must still navigate an extensive permitting process spanning multiple years.

The proposed mining location encompasses a complex mix of state, federal and private properties, creating a complicated regulatory maze.

The company’s initial challenge involves reestablishing mining rights after Biden administration Interior Department officials canceled their federal land leases in early 2022. Twin Metals launched federal litigation seeking confirmation that their leases remain active, but a judge dismissed their case in 2023. The company is challenging that ruling.

Twin Metals must also secure a mining authorization from Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources by demonstrating their ability to prevent water contamination, safely manage waste materials and rehabilitate the land following extraction completion. The company requires additional state water and air quality permits. Minnesota Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, who opposed lifting the prohibition, could present significant obstacles if she succeeds in her gubernatorial campaign this November.

Environmental organizations and tribal groups may potentially contest every permit through litigation, possibly delaying Twin Metals’ operations for years. Friends of the Boundary Waters has indicated legal action remains “under active consideration.”

Canadian authorities might also express concerns about potential cross-border contamination violating international agreements with the United States. The Boundary Waters forms the border between northeastern Minnesota and northwestern Ontario.

The region remains largely undisturbed by human activity. Timber harvesting is forbidden, aircraft must maintain minimum flight altitudes overhead, and motorized watercraft access is restricted to designated zones. The Forest Service distributed approximately 776,000 visitor permits from 2020 through 2024.

A shooting incident that occurred during Saturday’s White House Correspondents Dinner has once more drawn attention to the troubling pattern of political violence plaguing the United States. However, investigators continue to search for answers regarding what drove the suspect to act.

MINNEAPOLIS — Federal law enforcement officials executed several search warrants throughout Minnesota on Tuesday as part of a continuing investigation into fraudulent activities targeting government-funded social programs, according to authorities.

Officials provided limited information about the operation. The action represents the most recent friction between federal authorities and Minnesota officials, following months of immigration enforcement activities that resulted in two fatalities before policies were modified.

Prior to the recent enforcement surge, federal investigators pursued cases against numerous individuals, including many Somali Americans, accused of stealing from a federal nutrition program designed to feed children.

“Homeland Security Investigations in cooperation with our law enforcement partners executed criminal search warrants in Minneapolis relating to the rampant fraud of U.S. taxpayers dollars,” the department said.

Neither the department nor Immigration and Customs Enforcement provided additional details when contacted about the operations.

Earlier this year in February, Vice President JD Vance announced the Trump administration would “temporarily halt” $243 million in Minnesota Medicaid funding due to fraud-related concerns, describing it as part of an intensive effort to combat public fund misuse. Minnesota responded by filing a lawsuit, cautioning that healthcare services for low-income residents could face cuts if the funding remained frozen.

During March congressional testimony, Governor Tim Walz expressed his willingness to collaborate with federal officials on fraud investigations, but noted that increased immigration enforcement was complicating those efforts.

“The people of Minnesota have been singled out and targeted for political retribution at an unparalleled scale,” Walz said at the time.

NEW YORK — A Manhattan federal judge has determined that former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey’s wrongful termination lawsuit will move forward in federal court, rejecting government attempts to redirect the case to administrative proceedings.

U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman issued a written decision Tuesday stating that the constitutional grounds cited for Comey’s dismissal last year — specifically Article II of the Constitution granting executive authority to the president — places her case outside typical employment dispute procedures that usually handle conflicts between federal agencies and their workers.

The Justice Department has not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the ruling.

In her lawsuit filed in September, Comey argues that her termination was improper and motivated primarily by her family connection to former FBI Director James B. Comey, or due to assumptions about her political views, according to the judge’s summary of her claims.

During December court hearings, Judge Furman had previously denied Comey’s request to immediately begin collecting evidence about who authorized her firing and the circumstances surrounding it, acknowledging the government’s argument that the federal Merit Systems Protection Board should first review the dismissal.

Comey’s legal filing alleges that her removal — which occurred shortly after she successfully prosecuted high-profile cases including Sean “Diddy” Combs on prostitution-related charges — was retaliation connected to her father’s adversarial relationship with former President Trump. Trump terminated James Comey from his FBI director position in 2017.

The judge has scheduled a preliminary pretrial conference for May 28 to begin moving the civil case forward.