Category: Politics

MADISON, Wis. — A Republican state legislator is condemning what he calls a secretive attempt by the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents to remove the system’s president without providing any justification for their actions.

Jay Rothman, who has led the 165,000-student university system since 2022, revealed in correspondence first obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday that regents were pressuring him to step down or face termination without giving reasons. These letters marked the first public disclosure that Rothman’s position was at risk and caught university officials and state leaders off guard.

Board members contacted by the AP have refused to provide statements.

“This lack of transparency is unacceptable,” Wisconsin Assembly colleges and universities committee chair David Murphy, a Republican, declared in a Friday statement. “President Rothman deserves to know exactly why the Board has lost confidence in his leadership.”

During his time in office, Rothman has worked to secure additional state funding while facing federal budget cuts, handled campus free speech issues during pro-Palestinian demonstrations, and dealt with dropping student numbers that resulted in closing eight satellite campuses.

Murphy, who has frequently criticized the university in the past, commended Rothman’s performance, stating “he has made tough decisions to sustain our campuses and protect educational access for Wisconsin students.”

“I am concerned that the push to oust him may actually stem from his strong support for free speech and open inquiry on our campuses—core principles that must be defended in higher education,” Murphy added.

The legislator demanded the regents provide a “full explanation” for their desire to remove Rothman or “stand down from this effort.”

Throughout his leadership, Rothman has managed relationships with a Republican-dominated Legislature while working under a regent board where most members were chosen by Democratic Governor Tony Evers. The board had an Evers-appointed majority when they selected Rothman for the position.

Governor Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday or Friday.

Since Evers will not run for a third term, a new governor will take office next year with authority to select regent board members. This board holds responsibility for hiring and dismissing university administrators.

Rothman previously considered stepping down in 2023 after regents initially rejected an agreement he had negotiated with Republican legislators regarding diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The board subsequently changed course and approved the arrangement.

This dispute over Rothman’s leadership coincides with upcoming changes at the system’s main Madison campus. Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin will depart when the current academic year ends in May to assume the presidency at Columbia University.

Before taking the UW role, Rothman served as chair and CEO of Milwaukee-based Foley & Lardner law firm and had no background in higher education administration.

Rothman currently receives an annual salary of $600,943 as UW president.

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration announced Friday its intention to transition airport security screening operations away from federal control, targeting the Transportation Security Administration that was established following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The administration’s budget blueprint calls for reducing TSA funding by $52 million while mandating that smaller airports participate in a contractor program where TSA finances private security screeners. Currently, approximately 50,000 federal workers conduct passenger screening at virtually every airport across the United States.

According to budget documentation, airports already participating in the private screening initiative have shown cost savings when compared to federally-operated security checkpoints.

The proposal comes after recent widespread airport chaos when TSA security personnel worked without pay starting in mid-February due to a funding standoff in budget negotiations.

On his first day in office, Trump dismissed TSA Administrator David Pekoske and has not put forward a successor. Previously, the administration sought a $247 million reduction in TSA funding, stating the “TSA has consistently failed audits while implementing intrusive screening measures that violate Americans’ privacy and dignity.”

Those earlier proposed reductions would have meant a 3-4% decrease in TSA workforce levels, with half affecting exit lane personnel and the remainder cutting 2% of security officers across 435 airports nationwide.

Under the Biden presidency, TSA workforce expanded to nearly 60,000 employees as passenger volumes grew. The agency processed a record 904 million travelers in 2024, representing a 5% jump from the previous year.

WASHINGTON – Federal telecommunications regulators announced Friday they are exploring a broader prohibition on Chinese technology equipment imports, potentially expanding restrictions already in place against several major manufacturers.

The Federal Communications Commission previously designated telecommunications and video surveillance products from five Chinese companies – Huawei, ZTE, Hytera, Hikvision and Dahua – for its “Covered List” back in 2021.

By November 2022, the agency had implemented rules preventing authorization of new product models from these Chinese manufacturers for import or sale within the United States. Now the FCC is soliciting public feedback on whether to completely halt ongoing imports of equipment from these firms that received approval for U.S. sales prior to the 2022 restrictions.

A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers has unveiled legislation Thursday aimed at tightening restrictions on semiconductor manufacturing equipment exports to China, potentially impacting Dutch technology giant ASML and several major Chinese chip producers.

The newly proposed MATCH Act seeks to safeguard America’s dominance in artificial intelligence technology by blocking Chinese firms from acquiring chipmaking equipment they cannot produce domestically. The legislation would also ensure that companies from allied nations operate under the same export limitations as their American counterparts.

While previous export controls targeting China’s semiconductor industry came through executive actions under Presidents Trump and Biden, this marks a Congressional initiative to further limit technology transfers.

The bill specifically targets immersion DUV lithography technology, a critical component for creating chip circuitry that China must import. This specialized market is largely controlled by Netherlands-based ASML, with Japan’s Nikon serving as a smaller competitor.

Under the proposed restrictions, companies would be prohibited from selling or maintaining such equipment for China’s leading semiconductor manufacturers, including SMIC, Hua Hong, Huawei, CXMT, and YMTC.

ASML representatives chose not to provide comment Friday regarding the proposed legislation.

Current regulations, developed in coordination with the United States and implemented by Dutch authorities, already prevent ASML from shipping its most sophisticated equipment to China. However, the company continues selling older DUV systems to Chinese manufacturers and to major South Korean and Taiwanese firms operating within China. The new legislation would eliminate these remaining sales channels.

China represented ASML’s biggest market in 2025, comprising 33% of total sales. The company projected this percentage would decline to 20% in the current year, according to January statements.

“It is not our place to comment on draft legislation proposed by lawmakers from other countries,” a Netherlands foreign ministry spokesperson stated. The foreign ministry oversees the country’s trade and export policies.

Republican Party leaders are facing an unwelcome scenario as the midterm election season approaches.

Eighteen months after Trump captured the presidency with promises to reduce living expenses and avoid military conflicts, he now leads a nation at war while energy prices climb and overseas tensions intensify – developments that concern many within his own political party.

During a nationally televised White House speech this week – his first since U.S. and Israeli forces struck Iran over a month ago – Trump provided mixed signals about the conflict’s direction, simultaneously indicating the war was both concluding and expanding.

“Thanks to the progress we’ve made, I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly,” Trump said. “We’re going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks.”

These remarks arrive approximately six months before nationwide voting begins for elections that will determine Congressional control and key state leadership positions during Trump’s remaining term. Currently, Republicans maintain control across all federal government branches but are preparing for potential electoral consequences.

“You’re looking at an ugly November,” warned veteran Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. “At a point in time when we need every break possible to hold the House and Senate, our edge is being chipped away.”

The transformation of the political environment has been remarkable.

Twelve months ago, numerous Republican officials believed they could maintain their slim House advantage and comfortably retain Senate control. Today, they privately acknowledge the House appears lost while Democrats have genuine opportunities to capture the Senate.

Republicans are also finding it difficult to unite behind a consistent midterm election message regarding Iran.

The Republican National Committee has mostly avoided discussing the war in guidance provided to spokespersons during recent weeks. Leadership from the party’s House and Senate campaign organizations refused interview opportunities. Numerous at-risk Republican candidates avoid the topic, reluctant to either support or criticize Trump openly.

The president continues to enjoy strong support among Republican voters, with vocal advocates like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

“That was the best speech I could’ve hoped for,” he wrote on social media after Trump’s address on Wednesday evening. Graham said Trump “gave the American people a clear and coherent pathway forward.”

Trump provided minimal justification for the conflict to Americans before launching the initial strike. Five weeks afterward, at least 13 U.S. military personnel have died with hundreds more wounded. Thousands of additional troops have deployed to the region, while the Pentagon has requested $200 billion in additional funding.

The Strait of Hormuz, a critical pathway for twenty percent of global oil shipments, stays shut. Thursday’s average U.S. gasoline price reached $4.08 per gallon according to AAA, nearly one dollar above the cost on President Joe Biden’s final day in office.

During Wednesday’s address, Trump promised gasoline costs would decrease rapidly after the war’s conclusion but provided no plan for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Instead, he suggested skeptical U.S. allies handle the task themselves.

He maintained the war’s importance.

“This is a true investment in your grandchildren and your grandchildren’s future,” Trump said. “When it’s all over, the United States will be safer, stronger, more prosperous and greater than it has ever been before.”

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican who previously ranked among Trump’s strongest Congressional supporters, criticized his Iran strategy.

“I wanted so much for President Trump to put America First. That’s what I believed he would do. All I heard from his speech tonight was WAR WAR WAR,” she wrote on social media. “Nothing to lower the cost of living for Americans.”

Approximately 60 percent of U.S. adults believe the military action in Iran has “gone too far,” according to March AP-NORC polling. Roughly one-third approve of his overall Iran handling.

The prospect of deploying U.S. ground forces into Iran also seems politically unpopular.

About 60 percent of adults are “strongly” or “somewhat” opposed to sending U.S. troops for ground combat against Iran. This includes approximately half of Republicans. Only about 10 percent support troop deployment.

Meanwhile, Trump’s approval ratings have stayed consistently low. About 40 percent of Americans approve of his presidential performance, roughly matching levels throughout his second term.

Republican strategist Ari Fleischer, a senior aide during former President George W. Bush’s administration, noted that Trump has not experienced the polling boost Bush received after invading Iraq.

Bush, notably, worked to establish public support for the Iraq War beforehand. Following the 2003 invasion, Bush’s popularity jumped dramatically, along with stock markets.

Public opinion and economic conditions deteriorated only as the conflict continued. It eventually lasted over eight years, creating a generation of anti-war Republicans and influencing Trump’s “America First” foreign policy approach.

“My hope is that the Trump experience is the exact opposite of the Bush experience,” Fleischer said.

He emphasized Trump must achieve decisive, rapid victory to prevent further backlash, noting potential for “very significant political upside if things end well, oil comes down and markets rally.”

Fleischer stressed that Trump’s actions will prove more important than his rhetoric.

“Ultimately, he is not going to get judged on his persuasion or his explanations or his assertions, he’s going to get judged on results,” he said.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has requested the resignation of Army Chief of Staff Randy George, asking the top military leader to retire from his position.

The development was reported during a discussion between NPR’s Steve Inskeep and Nancy Youssef from The Atlantic, who provided analysis on this significant military leadership change.

The request for George’s departure represents a major shift in Army leadership under Hegseth’s tenure as Defense Secretary.

A preservation expert from the National Trust is spearheading legal efforts to block a proposed ballroom development linked to President Trump.

Alison Hoagland, who works with the National Trust, recently spoke about her involvement in the legal challenge against the ballroom complex construction. The interview took place in the vicinity of the White House.

Hoagland’s role centers on opposing the development through legal channels, though specific details about the nature of the ballroom project and the grounds for the legal challenge were not elaborated upon in the brief discussion.

A representative from the National Trust for Historic Preservation has emerged as a key figure in the legal battle opposing a ballroom development project associated with former President Trump.

Alison Hoagland, whose surname is pronounced “HOHG-lund,” spoke with NPR correspondent Steve Inskeep in an interview conducted in the vicinity of the White House. During their discussion, Hoagland detailed her involvement in the legal opposition to the proposed ballroom complex construction.

The National Trust official explained her central position in the ongoing legal proceedings that seek to halt the development of Trump’s ballroom facility. The interview provided insight into the preservation organization’s stance on the controversial construction project.

ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia’s legislative session concluded early Friday morning with no resolution to a critical voting equipment dispute that faces a July deadline, creating uncertainty for elections in the key swing state.

Months of legislative discussions failed to produce a workable solution, raising questions about how Georgia residents will cast ballots in November and potentially forcing the matter into courtrooms or requiring lawmakers to reconvene in a special session.

“They’ve abdicated their responsibility,” said Democratic state Rep. Saira Draper, criticizing the Republican-controlled legislature’s inability to act.

Georgia voters currently use Dominion Voting equipment that produces printed ballots containing QR codes, which scanning devices read to record votes. These systems became targets of criticism from President Donald Trump after his 2020 defeat, prompting his Georgia allies to pass 2024 legislation prohibiting the use of barcodes for vote counting.

However, existing state law continues to mandate county use of these machines. No funding has been designated to modify the equipment, and legislators couldn’t reach consensus on alternative systems.

“We’ll have an unresolvable statutory conflict come July 1,” explained House Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Victor Anderson, a Cornelia Republican who supported continuing current machine use through 2026 — a proposal Senate Republicans refused to consider.

Anderson’s plan gained support from both House Republicans and Democrats and would have mandated Georgia select a QR code-free voting method by 2028. Election administrators favored this approach.

“The Senate has shown that they’re not responsible actors,” Draper stated. She suggested Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, a Trump-endorsed Republican seeking the governor’s office, appeared more focused on maintaining Trump’s support than “doing right by Georgia voters.”

Jones’ office did not respond to early Friday requests for comment.

Joseph Kirk, who supervises elections in Bartow County and leads the Georgia Association of Voter Registration and Election Officials, said he expects guidance from the secretary of state and anticipates judicial intervention to direct election officials.

“This is uncharted territory,” Kirk noted.

Robert Sinners, speaking for Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who is also pursuing the governor’s office, said officials remain “ready to follow the law and follow the Constitution.”

Republican House Speaker Jon Burns explained to reporters that his chamber sought to limit changes during this election year.

“You can’t change horses in the middle of the stream,” Burns commented.

Burns indicated he would consult with Gov. Brian Kemp to gauge interest in calling a special session. Kemp’s office did not respond to questions about the departing Republican governor’s intended actions.

Anderson warned that without legislative action, the state might need to implement hand-marked and hand-counted paper ballots for November voting.

Election administrators argue that adopting new systems within months, as some Republicans advocate, would be virtually impossible.

“They made no way for this to happen except putting a deadline on it,” said Cherokee County elections director Anne Dover regarding the barcode elimination. Dover noted that certain proposals would require printing extremely large quantities of ballots.

Paulding County Election Supervisor Deidre Holden criticized lawmakers for prioritizing political positioning over practical planning.

“If anyone is resilient and can get the job done, it’s all of us election officials, but the legislators need to work with us, and they need to understand what we do before they go making laws that are basically unachievable for us,” Holden said.

Advocates for hand-marked paper ballots argue voters would have greater confidence in accurate counting if they could observe what scanners process.

Conservative election activists pushed legislators for immediate adoption of hand-marked paper ballots, but the House rejected a Senate proposal for such changes.

Anderson expressed uncertainty about whether a special session could navigate the political tensions but emphasized that Georgia lawmakers must address the issue.

“This is a legislative problem,” Anderson concluded. “It’s a legislative solution that has to happen.”

Fatalities within immigration detention facilities are climbing to unprecedented levels, with one Texas center drawing particular attention from federal oversight agencies.

Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas has become a focal point of concern after federal inspectors discovered serious deficiencies in safety protocols. During a February inspection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials identified 49 separate violations of detention standards at the facility.

Among the most serious infractions was the facility staff’s inability to “accurately document required checks to prevent significant self-harm and suicide,” according to the inspection report.

The findings at Camp East Montana highlight broader systemic issues as deaths in ICE custody continue to surge nationwide, setting a troubling new record for fatalities in federal immigration detention.

The inspection results raise questions about oversight and safety measures at detention centers across the country as immigration enforcement continues to expand.

Following Pam Bondi’s departure from her role as U.S. Attorney General, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse and their advocates are reflecting on what they view as missed opportunities for justice during her time in office.

Jess Michaels, who has publicly stated she was sexually assaulted by the deceased financier and convicted sex offender, initially held hope when Bondi took the position. “I thought, ‘Well, maybe a woman stepping into this role will finally, finally get the truth,’” Michaels said Thursday after President Donald Trump announced Bondi’s exit from the nation’s top law enforcement position.

“She had this opportunity to be a hero and to really do right by survivors of sexual violence and trafficking,” Michaels continued, “and she chose not to.”

The handling of what became known as the “Epstein files” – a collection of investigative records – created ongoing problems throughout Bondi’s tenure. The situation followed a pattern of initially building expectations for major revelations, then claiming there was little new information, and finally resulting in a problematic document release.

While Bondi dismissed criticism regarding her approach to the matter, Trump praised her Thursday as “a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend.”

Epstein survivors like Michaels remain skeptical that Bondi’s departure alone will restore their faith in the system. Fellow accuser Annie Farmer emphasized Thursday that “This is not about a single person. It is about a government and judicial system that has repeatedly failed Epstein survivors.”

Early in her tenure, Bondi generated excitement among those seeking transparency by announcing on Fox News that “you’re going to see some Epstein information released.” When asked specifically about making public “the list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients” – a rumored but never-confirmed roster of those involved in sex trafficking – she stated it was “sitting on my desk right now.”

The following day, conservative media figures were invited to the White House to receive DOJ binders marked “The Epstein Files: Phase 1” and “Declassified.”

However, this transparency effort quickly faced criticism when it became clear that most of the material was already available to the public. Bondi then demanded the FBI provide her with “the full and complete Epstein files,” later claiming she had discovered a “truckload” of previously hidden material and promising “everything is going to come out to the public.”

After months of anticipation, the Justice Department reversed course and announced it would not release additional Epstein materials. In an unsigned memo, the agency explained that court orders had sealed much of the information to protect victims, and “only a fraction” would have been made public even if Epstein had faced trial. Officials also stated they found no evidence warranting new charges or investigations, adding that “perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein” would not serve victims’ interests.

The department also clarified there was no “client list,” explaining that Bondi’s earlier reference to having it “on her desk” actually meant the general case file.

This reversal drew sharp criticism from conservative influencers and others who questioned Bondi’s competence. Despite this, Trump continued supporting her, even preventing a journalist from questioning her about Epstein during a White House Cabinet meeting.

Trump himself had raised questions about Epstein following the financier’s 2019 death in jail while facing federal sex trafficking charges. However, after the Justice Department memo, the president suggested there was nothing more to discuss regarding Epstein and urged the country, including his supporters, to move forward.

As revelations continued emerging that led to consequences for powerful individuals – notably Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, Britain’s former Prince Andrew – Congress enacted legislation requiring the Justice Department to release its Epstein investigative files. Trump signed this into law while characterizing the push for Epstein information as a Democratic distraction from Republican priorities.

At Trump’s direction, Bondi announced that the Manhattan U.S. attorney would examine Epstein’s connections to some of the Republican president’s political opponents, including former Democratic President Bill Clinton. Neither Clinton nor Trump, both former Epstein associates, have been accused of wrongdoing by Epstein’s accusers. Both have stated they were unaware of Epstein’s misconduct and ended their relationships with him years ago.

When the statutory deadline arrived for releasing the Epstein files, the Justice Department only disclosed a portion of them. While the records contained some previously unseen material, including candid photographs of Clinton, they did not reveal groundbreaking information and included minimal content about Trump.

The department indicated it was continuing to review other Epstein records to ensure victim protection.

Democrats alleged a cover-up, bill sponsor Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., accused the Justice Department of violating the law by missing deadlines and over-redacting documents, and some Epstein accusers also questioned the extensive redactions.

Subsequently, the Justice Department began releasing a massive collection of additional Epstein documents, videos and photographs, though some materials remained sealed.

These records revealed favor-trading and candid communications within an elite circle that overlooked Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea for soliciting prostitution from a minor in Florida. Several high-profile Epstein associates resigned or lost positions in corporate America, academia, major law firms, and the British, Slovakian and Norwegian governments.

However, the documents exposed highly personal details about some victims while redacting names of Epstein correspondents in communications that appeared to reference sexual abuse of minors.

Gloria Allred, who represents multiple Epstein victims, stated Thursday that Bondi failed them by not protecting personal information in the files. “She has destroyed the trust in the DOJ that victims had a right to expect, and her termination may be the only type of justice that survivors will receive from the DOJ,” Allred said via email.

During a congressional hearing, Bondi attempted to address the Epstein files controversy in a confrontational manner. She defended the Justice Department’s handling of the matter, directed personal attacks at Democrats, and praised Trump on various topics including stock market performance.

While Bondi expressed deep regret for what Epstein victims endured, she refused a request from Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., to face the victims and apologize for the Justice Department’s actions. She also dismissed Massie’s criticisms regarding the release of victims’ personal information.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a subpoena requiring Bondi to answer questions on April 14 about the Justice Department’s management of the Epstein investigation and file release. With five Republicans joining Democrats in supporting the subpoena, it demonstrated widespread dissatisfaction, including within the GOP base, regarding Bondi’s handling of the situation.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche will now serve as acting attorney general.

Michaels, who traveled to the Capitol to advocate for the files’ release, wanted Bondi removed from office. However, she remains uncertain about whether Blanche will perform better. “We can only hope. But given that they worked together, I don’t have great expectations,” she said.

Robert Glassman, who represents a woman who testified as “Jane” in the 2021 criminal trial of Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, noted that agency leadership changes regularly. “For victims of sexual abuse, what matters is whether the institutions meant to protect them actually do their job,” he said.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration plans to unveil its 2027 budget proposal on Friday, featuring a comprehensive plan that would allocate $1.5 trillion to Pentagon operations — representing the most substantial military funding request in recent decades as the nation prioritizes defense capabilities over domestic initiatives.

Prior to the ongoing U.S.-led conflict with Iran, the Republican commander-in-chief had already signaled his intention to strengthen military funding to update America’s armed forces for contemporary security challenges. Additionally, the Pentagon submitted a separate $200 billion request last month to support combat operations and replenish weapons stockpiles and equipment.

During remarks made before delivering a national address regarding the Iran conflict this week, Trump emphasized that military preparedness remains his top concern, establishing the groundwork for upcoming legislative battles in Congress.

“We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of day care,” Trump said at a private White House event Wednesday.

“It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare — all these individual things,” he said. “They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal.”

The commander-in-chief’s yearly budget proposal serves as a window into the administration’s principles and priorities, though it lacks legal authority. This comprehensive document traditionally showcases what an administration values most, while Congress maintains complete authority over federal expenditures and frequently dismisses presidential budget recommendations.

The country currently faces approximately $2 trillion in yearly deficits with total debt exceeding $39 trillion, creating a financial situation where federal accounts have operated at a loss for an extended period.

Roughly two-thirds of the nation’s projected $7 trillion in yearly expenditures funds Medicare and Medicaid healthcare initiatives, plus Social Security benefits, which continue expanding automatically alongside the country’s aging demographics.

The remaining portion of yearly government spending has traditionally been divided roughly equally between military and domestic accounts at nearly $1 trillion apiece, creating the primary area where Congressional negotiations typically focus.

The Republican Party’s significant tax reduction legislation that Trump enacted last year advanced his agenda outside normal budget procedures — providing at least $150 billion for Pentagon programs over upcoming years, plus $170 billion for Trump’s border security and deportation initiatives through the Department of Homeland Security.

This year’s White House proposal, developed under Budget Director Russ Vought’s guidance, aims to offer Congressional leadership a framework as legislators craft their own spending plans and yearly funding bills to maintain government operations. Vought briefed House Republican members during a closed-door conference call Thursday.

The presidential budget emerges while House and Senate members remain gridlocked over current fiscal year appropriations and stuck on DHS funding discussions, with Democrats insisting on modifications to Trump’s immigration enforcement approach that Republicans refuse to consider.

Trump declared Thursday his intention to sign an executive directive ensuring all DHS employees receive compensation despite missing paychecks during the unprecedented partial government closure that has lasted 49 days. Congressional Republican leadership reached a compromise this week establishing a framework for department funding, though lawmakers remain on spring recess and have not yet voted on new legislation.

During the previous year, in the president’s initial budget since his White House return, Trump attempted to honor his commitment to dramatically shrink federal government size and influence, reflecting efforts by billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

While DOGE eliminated federal positions and Vought attempted to recover allocated funds, Congress frequently disagreed with these approaches.

Trump requested approximately a twenty percent reduction in non-military spending for the current budget cycle ending September 30, but Congress maintained such expenditures at relatively unchanged levels.

Certain programs Trump aimed to completely eliminate, including assistance for families with utility expenses, received modest funding increases. Other initiatives maintained steady funding levels, such as Community Development Block Grants that states and municipalities utilize for various projects primarily designed to benefit low-income areas through new recreational facilities, infrastructure systems and affordable housing developments.

Legislative members have also emphasized ensuring the administration utilizes federal resources according to Congressional directives. This year’s spending legislation included what Senator Patty Murray, the senior Democratic member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, characterized as “hundreds upon hundreds of specific funding levels and directives” that the administration must implement.

A federal oversight inspection has uncovered dozens of standards violations at the nation’s largest immigration detention center, according to a report released this week.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detention oversight office conducted a three-day examination in February at Camp East Montana, a $1.2 billion facility in El Paso, Texas. The congressionally required review identified 49 separate violations of established detention protocols.

The inspection team documented what they termed “deficiencies,” which the report describes as “any violation of detention standards, policies, or operational procedures, as applicable.”

The violations broke down into several concerning categories: 22 infractions involved improper “use of force and restraints,” while 11 related to “facility security and control” issues. An additional five violations concerned “medical care” standards at the detention center.

The facility has drawn intense scrutiny from immigration advocacy organizations who oppose the Trump administration’s hardline immigration enforcement policies. These groups argue the government’s approach violates constitutional protections and creates dangerous conditions for minority communities, while also raising alarms about potential racial profiling practices.

The Trump administration defends its immigration strategy as necessary for enhancing national security and preventing unauthorized border crossings.

ICE detention centers nationwide have come under increasing examination due to concerning trends in detainee deaths. Federal records show at least 14 immigrants died while in ICE custody between January 2026 and late March. This follows 31 deaths during the previous year, marking a 20-year peak in detention facility fatalities.

Camp East Montana has experienced at least two deaths among the 2026 total, according to agency data.

Texas Democratic Representative Veronica Escobar toured the facility in late 2025 and reported disturbing conditions. Following her visit, Escobar described detainees facing “foul-tasting drinking water, rotten food and inadequate healthcare.”

RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina’s highest court ended a three-decade legal fight over school funding Thursday, delivering a decision that ensures state lawmakers, not judges, will continue controlling education spending decisions.

In a narrow 4-3 vote driven by the court’s Republican majority, justices overturned a significant 2022 decision made when Democrats controlled the bench. That earlier ruling had granted a lower court judge authority to direct state tax dollars toward addressing persistent educational inequalities.

A year later, a trial judge determined North Carolina owed $678 million as part of a comprehensive eight-year plan worth billions. The plan aimed to boost teacher pay and recruitment, expand early childhood programs, and provide additional support for students with disabilities.

Chief Justice Paul Newby explained in Thursday’s opinion that what began as a limited legal challenge regarding one county’s school spending had transformed into “a full-scale, facial assault on the entire educational system enacted by the General Assembly.” Newby argued judicial involvement had overstepped appropriate boundaries.

“When the case expanded the trial court’s authority to hear the case likewise ceased,” Newby stated while ordering the school funding case dismissed.

The ruling comes more than two years after justices heard arguments in the case. Republican legislators, who maintain control of the General Assembly, will no longer face court-ordered requirements to implement the remedial plan while crafting state budgets, including this year’s spending plan that remains months overdue.

Democratic Governor Josh Stein must now depend on legislative persuasion and veto threats to advance his preferred education programs. Stein served as the state’s attorney general when the 2022 ruling was issued.

“The Supreme Court simply ignored its own established precedent, enabling the General Assembly to continue to deprive another generation of North Carolina students of the education promised by our constitution,” Stein said Thursday.

Three justices opposed Thursday’s majority decision, including two Democrats and one Republican.

Democratic Associate Justice Anita Earls criticized the ruling as focusing more on procedural concerns than student welfare.

“Allowing the state to escape judicial scrutiny for constitutional rights violations through its behavior during litigation quickly turns constitutional rights into words on paper — morally compelling but functionally useless,” Earls wrote in her dissent.

Focus now shifts to developing the next state education budget as the General Assembly prepares to reconvene this month. Education represents nearly 40% of North Carolina’s annual $30 billion operating budget.

Republican Senate leader Phil Berger celebrated the decision, stating in a press release that “liberal education special interests have improperly tried to hijack North Carolina’s constitutional funding process in order to impose their policy preferences via judicial fiat. Today’s decision confirms that the proper pathway for policymaking is the legislative process.”

GOP critics have highlighted taxpayer-funded private school vouchers as evidence that more resources could benefit public school students.

The legal battle originated in 1994 when several low-income school districts and student families filed suit, claiming the state violated North Carolina’s constitution by failing to provide sufficient education funding.

The case became known as “Leandro,” named after one of the original student plaintiffs.

Previous state Supreme Court decisions in 1997 and 2004 established that the constitution guarantees all children an “opportunity to receive a sound basic education,” while finding the state inadequately prepared to meet this requirement. Many argue this fundamental problem persists today.

“The people paying the price for our leaders’ failure are not abstractions. They are the generations of children in rural communities, past and present, who waited for 30 years for a promise never fulfilled,” said Tamika Walker Kelly, president of the North Carolina Association of Educators.

The court’s 2022 Democratic majority had concluded that earlier Supreme Court rulings, combined with the constitution’s education guarantee and years of legislative inaction, created exceptional circumstances allowing the late Judge David Lee to mandate spending without specific legislative authorization.

The Trump administration is reportedly considering potential departures of several key officials, including FBI Director Kash Patel, according to a Thursday report from The Atlantic.

Sources with knowledge of White House planning told the publication that discussions are also underway regarding Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll and Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer potentially leaving their positions.

According to The Atlantic’s reporting, the timeline for any such moves remains unclear, and President Donald Trump has not reached final decisions on the matter.

Reuters was unable to independently confirm the details of the report at the time of publication.

President Donald Trump has elevated Todd Blanche, his former criminal defense attorney, from deputy attorney general to acting head of the Justice Department in a Thursday announcement.

The 51-year-old lawyer gained national recognition during the four years between Trump’s presidential terms by representing him in several high-profile criminal proceedings.

Blanche, who previously worked as a federal prosecutor and law firm partner, spearheaded Trump’s legal defense across multiple cases, including the Manhattan hush money trial that resulted in 34 felony convictions, as well as two federal cases initiated by special counsel Jack Smith that were later dropped.

In a social media statement, Trump described Blanche as “a very talented and respected Legal Mind.”

In his previous role as deputy attorney general, Blanche held the department’s number-two position.

Serving under Attorney General Pam Bondi, he handled daily departmental operations and emerged as one of its primary spokespersons and public representatives. His responsibilities included supervising the disclosure of Jeffrey Epstein government documents and making regular television news appearances.

A closer examination of Blanche’s professional background reveals his path to leading the Justice Department:

The Denver-area native earned his law degree from Brooklyn Law School through evening classes while simultaneously working as a paralegal at Manhattan’s U.S. attorney’s office, graduating with honors. He obtained his bachelor’s degree from American University in Washington, D.C.

Following law school, Blanche clerked for federal judges Denny Chin and Joseph Bianco, who now serve on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, before spending eight years as a federal prosecutor in the same Manhattan office where he had worked as a paralegal.

During his prosecutorial career, he spent two years leading the office’s violent crimes unit as co-chief, supervising approximately 24 prosecutors handling murder, kidnapping, and other serious violent crime cases.

In 2014, Blanche transitioned to private practice, joining WilmerHale’s Manhattan location. Three years later, in September 2017, he moved to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP as a partner specializing in white collar defense and investigations.

Foreshadowing his future work with Trump, Blanche successfully defended Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, securing dismissal of a mortgage fraud case in 2019 in the same New York courthouse where Trump would later face trial.

Blanche’s defense strategy centered on arguing that the Manhattan district attorney’s case too closely resembled federal charges that had already sent Manafort to prison, constituting double jeopardy.

In 2023, Blanche departed Cadwalader to join Trump’s legal team, informing colleagues of his decision to represent the former president just before Trump’s arraignment in the hush money case.

In his resignation email, he stated: “I have been asked to represent Trump in the recently charged DA case, and after much thought/consideration, I have decided it is the best thing for me to do and an opportunity I should not pass up.”

Even following his conviction, Trump was impressed by Blanche’s aggressive approach, his readiness to challenge witnesses and judges, and his composure during media appearances.

Trump subsequently appointed both Blanche and fellow defense attorney Emil Bove to senior Justice Department positions in his new administration, while nominating Bove for a judgeship on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last summer.

Beyond the hush money proceedings, Blanche defended Trump in both special counsel cases: the Washington-based 2020 election interference case and the Florida case involving allegations of retaining classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

In both matters, Blanche’s defense team successfully implemented a strategy focused primarily on postponing proceedings beyond the 2024 presidential election. Following Trump’s electoral victory, Smith moved to dismiss both cases, citing established Justice Department guidelines prohibiting the indictment or prosecution of sitting presidents.

Just ten days before Trump’s return to the presidency, Blanche appeared alongside him via video from Mar-a-Lago as a Manhattan judge imposed no punishment in the hush-money case.

“The majority of the American people also agree that this case should not have been brought,” Blanche told the judge, referencing the election outcome as public vindication.

“The American voters got a chance to see and decide for themselves whether this was the kind of case that should’ve been brought,” Blanche said. “And they decided.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Thursday that military personnel will now be permitted to carry their personal firearms on military installations for self-protection, marking a significant departure from decades-old policy.

Through a video message shared on X, Hegseth revealed he is issuing a directive instructing base commanders to approve requests from service members seeking to carry their privately owned guns “with the presumption that it is necessary for personal protection.”

The new policy requires commanders to provide detailed written justification for any rejected requests.

“Effectively, our bases across the country were gun-free zones,” Hegseth stated. “Unless you’re training or unless you are a military policeman, you couldn’t carry, you couldn’t bring your own firearm for your own personal protection onto post.”

The policy shift follows a series of violent incidents at military installations nationwide. Past tragedies have sparked debate about why armed service members cannot access weapons for protection, ranging from individual conflicts to mass casualty events like the 2009 Fort Hood shooting in Texas where an Army psychiatrist killed 13 people.

Hegseth referenced recent incidents, including last year’s shooting at Fort Stewart in Georgia that wounded five soldiers. In that case, an Army sergeant used his personal handgun before fellow soldiers subdued and arrested him.

“In these instances, minutes are a lifetime,” Hegseth explained. “And our service members have the courage and training to make those precious, short minutes count.”

Current Defense Department regulations have long forbidden military members from bringing personal weapons onto installations without senior commander approval, with stringent storage requirements.

Under existing rules, personnel must formally retrieve their firearms from secure storage for approved activities like hunting or target practice on base, then immediately return them afterward. Military police typically remain the only armed personnel on installations, except during training exercises or at designated shooting facilities where service weapons may be used without live ammunition.

Tanya Schardt from the Brady gun violence prevention organization criticized the change, noting that Defense Department leadership and military officials have historically opposed loosening current restrictions, which originated during President George H.W. Bush’s administration.

“Our military installations are among the most guarded, protected properties in the world, and they’ve never been ‘gun-free zones,’” Schardt stated. “If there is a problem with violent crime on these installations, then the Secretary of Defense has an obligation to alert the American people and describe how he’s working to prevent that crime.”

Federal authorities filed legal action Thursday against three states that have moved to shut down prediction market platforms, sparking a jurisdictional battle over who controls these emerging financial instruments.

Connecticut, Arizona and Illinois have all issued orders demanding companies like Kalshi and Polymarket halt operations, claiming these platforms violate state gambling prohibitions. Arizona escalated the dispute last month by bringing criminal charges against Kalshi, alleging violations of both gambling statutes and laws prohibiting election wagering.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission argues in its lawsuit that federal law gives it sole authority to oversee these market operators, not individual states.

CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig defended the agency’s position in a statement, saying “The CFTC will continue to safeguard its exclusive regulatory authority over these markets and defend market participants against overzealous state regulators.” Selig added that Congress previously “rejected such a fragmented patchwork of state regulations” due to concerns about increased fraud risk and inadequate consumer safeguards.

The Trump administration recently backed the prediction market companies in this ongoing legal fight, which could influence future sports betting regulations.

Connecticut’s top prosecutor pushed back against the federal challenge Thursday, with Attorney General William Tong claiming the administration is “recycling industry arguments” that courts nationwide have already dismissed.

“These contracts are plainly unlicensed illegal gambling under time-worn state law, and we will aggressively defend Connecticut’s commonsense consumer protection laws,” Tong stated.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump has implemented sweeping new tariffs on pharmaceutical imports and modified existing metal duties as his administration moves forward from last year’s failed global tariff strategy.

The president announced 100% tariffs on specific branded drug imports Thursday, while simultaneously restructuring duties on steel, aluminum and copper products. These measures arrive precisely one year after Trump’s previous comprehensive tariff program collapsed.

The pharmaceutical tariffs stem from a national security review of drug imports. Under the new policy, foreign manufacturers of patented medications must negotiate pricing agreements with the federal government and pledge to relocate production to American soil to completely avoid tariffs.

Companies that only relocate some manufacturing operations to the United States will face 20% tariffs, while those refusing both requirements will encounter the full 100% duty rate, according to administration officials.

However, the pharmaceutical tariffs include exceptions. Trade agreements with the European Union, Japan, South Korea and Switzerland will limit branded drug tariffs to 15%. Additionally, the United States and Britain reached a separate agreement guaranteeing zero tariffs on British-manufactured pharmaceuticals for three years minimum while Britain establishes U.S. production facilities.

Large pharmaceutical companies will have 120 days to meet compliance requirements before facing the 100% tariff rates, while smaller manufacturers receive 180 days, administration officials stated.

Regarding metals, Trump’s separate proclamation reduced tariff rates to 25% on numerous derivative products containing steel, aluminum and copper, while eliminating duties entirely on items with minimal metal content.

The 50% duty on raw steel, aluminum and copper imports remains unchanged. However, the administration will now calculate this rate based on U.S. sales prices rather than declared import values, which officials claim were frequently understated.

These metal tariff modifications aim to streamline what officials described as an overly complex system that created difficulties for importers trying to assess metal content values across thousands of products, ranging from farm equipment components to kitchen sinks and railway materials.

Items containing less than 15% metal content by weight, such as dental floss dispensers with small steel cutting blades, will no longer face these tariffs. The administration also announced reduced duties of 15% instead of 50% on certain metal-heavy industrial and electrical grid equipment through 2027 to support infrastructure and data center construction.

The metal tariff changes take effect Monday after midnight, according to the order.

These announcements coincide with the first anniversary of Trump’s “Liberation Day” declaration of “reciprocal tariffs” ranging from 10% to 50% on imports from all trading partners, including some uninhabited territories. Those tariffs, implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, triggered months of Chinese retaliation, international trade negotiations and legal challenges from importers.

The Supreme Court ruled the IEEPA-based tariffs illegal in February, leading to a lower court directive requiring U.S. Customs and Border Protection to develop a refund plan for approximately $166 billion in collected tariffs.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer defended the IEEPA tariffs Thursday as a “reset button” for a dysfunctional global trading system. Greer credited the tariffs with encouraging companies to construct new American factories and compelling trading partners to offer concessions for U.S. exports.

“The best is yet to come as President Trump’s tariff program incentivizes domestic production, raises workers’ wages, and reinforces our critical supply chains,” Greer stated.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce criticized the new measures, arguing that Trump’s higher tariffs over the past year have already increased prices and created cost pressures across multiple industries. The organization warned the latest announcements could trigger additional price increases.

“A new, complex tariff scheme on pharmaceuticals will raise healthcare costs for American families,” said Neil Bradley, the Chamber’s policy chief.

“Changes to metals tariffs will likewise raise prices for consumers and add pressure to manufacturing, construction, and energy — industries that are already reeling from higher input costs and ongoing supply-chain challenges,” Bradley added.

However, Steel Manufacturers Association president Philip Bell commended the administration for “right-sizing” the metals derivatives list and updating valuation methods to ensure tariffs “remain precisely targeted to support the revitalization of the American steel industry without undermining broader economic goals.”

President Donald Trump issued an executive order Thursday that threatens to impose tariffs reaching 100% on certain patented medications from pharmaceutical companies that fail to negotiate pricing agreements with his administration over the next several months.

Under the new policy, pharmaceutical companies that agree to “most favored nation” pricing arrangements and actively construct manufacturing facilities in America for patented drugs and their components will face zero tariffs. Companies building U.S. facilities but lacking pricing agreements will encounter 20% tariffs initially, escalating to 100% within four years.

A senior administration official explained during a media briefing that companies have time to negotiate before facing maximum tariffs — 120 days for larger corporations and 180 days for smaller ones. The official, who spoke anonymously ahead of the order’s release, declined to name specific companies or medications at risk but mentioned that the administration has already negotiated 17 pricing agreements with major drugmakers, with 13 contracts finalized.

In his executive order, Trump justified the measures as essential “to address the threatened impairment of the national security posed by imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients.” The announcement coincided with the first anniversary of Trump’s “Liberation Day,” when he implemented broad import taxes on nearly all trading partners, causing significant stock market volatility. The Supreme Court overturned those Liberation Day tariffs in February.

Industry representatives expressed concern about the newly announced tariffs. PhRMA CEO Stephen J. Ubl warned that taxes “on cutting-edge medicines will increase costs and could jeopardize billions in U.S. investments.” He emphasized America’s substantial biopharmaceutical manufacturing presence and noted that imported medicines “overwhelmingly come from reliable U.S. allies.”

Since beginning his second term, Trump has implemented numerous import taxes on trading partners and consistently promised substantial levies on foreign-produced medications. However, the administration has leveraged tariff threats to secure agreements with major corporations including Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Bristol Myers Squibb throughout the past year, obtaining commitments for reduced pricing on new medications.

Several countries have established trade frameworks with the United States to limit pharmaceutical tariffs. The European Union, Japan, Korea and Switzerland will face 15% U.S. tariffs on patented drugs, matching previously established rates for most goods. The United Kingdom will encounter 10% tariffs, which Thursday’s order specified would “then reduce to zero” under future trade agreements. Britain previously announced it secured zero tariff rates for all exported medicines to America for at least three years.

Trump also updated his 50% tariffs on imported steel, aluminum and copper Thursday. Beginning Monday, tariff calculations for these metals will use the “full customs value” that American customers pay when purchasing foreign metal, which administration officials claim will prevent importers from avoiding higher payments.

Products manufactured entirely from steel, aluminum and copper will continue facing 50% tariffs from most countries. The administration is modifying how tariffs apply to derivative metals or finished products containing some of these materials without being entirely composed of them.

For products where metal comprises less than 15% of total weight, such as perfume bottle caps, only country-specific tariffs will apply, officials explained Thursday. Products with higher metal content, like predominantly steel washing machines, will face 25% tariffs on their complete value.

Thursday’s orders demonstrate Trump’s continued use of sectoral duties. The president invoked Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act for these levies, the same authority used for import taxes on automobiles, lumber and kitchen cabinets. Experts anticipate additional product-specific import taxes ahead.

This approach follows a Supreme Court ruling that eliminated tariffs Trump imposed using different legislation — the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act — which allowed immediate tariffs on any country at virtually any level.

While the February 20 court decision significantly impacted Trump’s economic strategy, the president retains multiple options for aggressive import taxation. Beyond sectoral levies, Trump implemented a 10% tariff on all imports using separate legal authority hours after the Supreme Court ruling, though this duty expires after 150 days. Approximately two dozen states have already challenged these new tariffs.

Trump maintains his steep import taxes are essential to recover wealth “stolen” from America. He argues they will reduce the nation’s longstanding trade deficit and restore domestic manufacturing. However, Trump has also employed tariffs for personal grievances or responding to political opposition. Disrupting global supply chains has proven expensive for businesses and households already facing rising costs.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order Thursday establishing substantial tariffs on patented medications, potentially reaching 100% for pharmaceutical companies that fail to negotiate pricing agreements with his administration within the coming months.

Under the new framework, pharmaceutical manufacturers that execute “most favored nation” pricing agreements and actively construct U.S. facilities for domestic production of patented medications and their components will face zero tariffs. Companies building domestic facilities without pricing agreements will encounter 20% tariffs initially, escalating to 100% over four years.

A senior administration official briefing reporters indicated companies have several months to negotiate before maximum tariffs take effect — 120 days for larger corporations and 180 days for smaller ones. The official, who requested anonymity while previewing the executive order, declined to name specific companies or medications facing potential tariff increases but mentioned the administration has already secured 17 pricing agreements with major pharmaceutical companies, with 13 formally signed.

Trump justified the measures in his executive order as necessary “to address the threatened impairment of the national security posed by imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients.” The announcement coincided with the first anniversary of Trump’s “Liberation Day,” when he introduced comprehensive import taxes on nearly all countries worldwide, triggering significant stock market volatility. The Supreme Court overturned those Liberation Day tariffs in February.

Industry representatives expressed concern about the new tariff announcement. PhRMA CEO Stephen J. Ubl warned that taxes “on cutting-edge medicines will increase costs and could jeopardize billions in U.S. investments.” He emphasized America’s existing substantial biopharmaceutical manufacturing presence and noted that imported medicines “overwhelmingly come from reliable U.S. allies.”

Since beginning his second term, Trump has implemented numerous import taxes on trading partners and repeatedly promised substantial levies on foreign-produced medications. However, the administration has leveraged tariff threats to negotiate agreements with major corporations including Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Bristol Myers Squibb over the past year, securing commitments for reduced pricing on new medications.

Several countries have established trade frameworks with the U.S. to limit drug tariffs. The European Union, Japan, Korea and Switzerland will face 15% U.S. tariffs on patented pharmaceuticals, matching previously negotiated rates for most products, while the United Kingdom receives 10% rates that “will reduce to zero” under future trade agreements. Britain previously announced securing 0% tariff rates for all British medicines exported to America for at least three years.

Trump also announced modifications to his 50% tariffs on imported steel, aluminum and copper Thursday. Beginning Monday, tariff calculations on these metals will use the “full customs value” of what U.S. customers pay for foreign metal purchases, which administration officials claim will prevent importers from avoiding higher payments.

Products manufactured entirely from steel, aluminum and copper will maintain 50% tariffs for most countries. The administration is adjusting tariff calculations for derivative metals or finished products containing some metals but not made entirely from them.

Products with metal content below 15% of total weight, such as perfume bottle caps, will only face country-specific tariffs, officials explained Thursday. Products with higher metal content, like predominantly steel washing machines, will incur 25% tariffs on their complete value.

Thursday’s orders demonstrate Trump’s continued use of sectoral duties. The president invoked Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act for these levies, the same authority used for import taxes on automobiles, lumber and kitchen cabinets. Many anticipate additional product-specific import taxes ahead.

This approach follows a Supreme Court ruling that struck down tariffs Trump imposed using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to immediately impose tariffs on any country at virtually any level.

While the February 20 court decision significantly impacted Trump’s economic agenda, the president retains multiple options for aggressive import taxation. Beyond sectoral levies, Trump imposed a 10% tariff on all imports using separate legal authority hours after the Supreme Court ruling, though this duty expires after 150 days. Approximately two dozen states have already challenged these new tariffs.

Trump maintains his steep import taxes are essential to recover wealth “stolen” from the U.S. He argues they will reduce America’s longstanding trade deficit and restore domestic manufacturing. However, Trump has also employed tariffs for personal grievances or responding to political opposition. Disrupting global supply chains has proven expensive for businesses and households already facing rising prices.

The U.S. Department of the Interior announced Thursday it will implement new voluntary departure programs for its workforce as part of broader efficiency improvements across the agency.

The department revealed plans to launch a deferred resignation initiative alongside voluntary early retirement options, though officials did not specify how many workers would be affected or which divisions would be targeted by these measures.

Department representatives were unavailable for further details when contacted.

This workforce reduction strategy supports President Donald Trump’s wider initiative to decrease the federal government’s overall size.

The department also outlined plans to reassign more National Parks Service staff to positions that directly interact with visitors while updating various operational procedures, including permit processing systems.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum emphasized the benefits of these changes in Thursday’s announcement. “By modernizing our operations we’re strengthening our ability to carry out Interior’s mission and deliver world-class service for the American people,” Burgum stated.

A Colorado appellate court has mandated a new sentencing hearing for Tina Peters, the former county clerk who received a nine-year prison term for interfering with voting equipment while investigating alleged fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

The three-judge panel on Thursday maintained Peters’ conviction on all seven criminal charges, including attempting to influence a public servant and dereliction of duty, but determined that the trial judge inappropriately factored in her constitutionally protected statements about election irregularities when determining her punishment.

Peters, a Republican, has gained support from former President Donald Trump, who has characterized her as a political prisoner and has pressured Colorado officials and Democratic Governor Jared Polis to secure her release. Polis indicated last month he might consider granting clemency in her case.

The appeals court criticized trial judge Matthew Barrett for allowing Peters’ beliefs about election fraud to influence her sentencing, noting that Barrett had labeled her a “charlatan” who continued to peddle “snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again” during the 2024 proceedings.

“The trial court’s comments about Peters’s belief in the existence of 2020 election fraud went beyond relevant considerations for her sentencing. Her offense was not her belief, however misguided the trial court deemed it to be, in the existence of such election fraud; it was her deceitful actions in her attempt to gather evidence of such fraud,” the appellate panel stated in their decision.

Peters faced criminal charges in 2022 after a security breach occurred in her office, resulting in voting machine passwords appearing on a conservative website. She has consistently maintained her innocence throughout the legal proceedings.

The court provided no guidance regarding what Peters’ new sentence should be, and she remains incarcerated while awaiting the resentencing hearing.

Although Trump issued a federal pardon for Peters in December, the appeals court noted that presidential pardoning authority does not extend to state-level criminal offenses. Peters’ legal representatives, Peter Ticktin and John Case, have not yet responded to media inquiries about the ruling.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon confirmed Thursday that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has requested the resignation of the Army’s highest-ranking uniformed leader, Gen. Randy George, during ongoing military operations against Iran.

An unnamed Pentagon source, speaking confidentially about the sensitive personnel decision, verified that George has been directed to pursue early retirement from his position as Army chief of staff, a role he has occupied since August 2023.

This dismissal of George represents another addition to the extensive list of over a dozen high-ranking military officials who have been terminated by Hegseth since assuming his position last year.

The development was initially disclosed by CBS News.

George brings extensive military credentials as a West Point graduate and infantry specialist who participated in combat operations during the original Gulf War and later deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. His career included serving as the principal military advisor to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin between 2021 and 2022 under the Biden presidency, prior to advancing to senior Army leadership positions.

George managed to survive Hegseth’s first wave of dismissals in February, which eliminated several top military commanders, including Adm. Lisa Franchetti, who led the Navy’s uniformed personnel, and Gen. Jim Silfe, the Air Force’s second-in-command. President Donald Trump simultaneously dismissed Gen. Charles “C.Q.” Brown from his role as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Following that initial purge, over a dozen additional senior military generals and admirals have either accepted early retirement or faced removal from their positions.

The departures included George’s second-in-command, Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Mingus, who held the position for under two years before Trump unexpectedly selected Lt. Gen. Christopher LaNeve as his replacement. LaNeve had been functioning as Hegseth’s principal military advisor after being transferred from his command of the Eighth Army in South Korea, where he served less than twelve months.

WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly requested that Army Chief of Staff Randy George resign from his position and enter immediate retirement, according to sources familiar with the matter.

CBS News reported the development on Thursday, citing individuals with knowledge of the decision. The request involves one of the military’s highest-ranking positions, as the Army Chief of Staff serves as the service’s senior uniformed officer.

A Florida-based drone manufacturer with financial ties to Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump is actively marketing defensive interceptor systems to Middle Eastern nations currently facing Iranian drone attacks.

Powerus, which announced last month that the president’s two eldest sons joined the company with equity stakes, is conducting demonstrations across Gulf nations to showcase how their anti-drone technology could defend against Iranian strikes.

“Our team is doing many demos across the Middle East right now for our interceptors,” co-founder Brett Velicovich stated in a text message to reporters. “We have very incredible tech that can save lives.”

The timing raises ethical questions, as these same nations depend on U.S. military protection under the leadership of the Trump brothers’ father, who initiated the current conflict with strikes against Iran alongside Israel more than a month ago.

“These countries are under enormous pressure to buy from the sons of the president so he will do what they want,” commented Richard Painter, who previously served as chief White House ethics attorney under President George W. Bush. “This is going to be the first family of a president to make a lot of money off war — a war he didn’t get the consent of Congress for.”

Velicovich, an Army veteran who previously encountered similar Russian-made drones now deployed by Iran, defended the business arrangement. “We are at war, my friend, we are in an arms race and America will lose if we don’t build fast,” he explained. “We should be thankful anyone is trying to invest in American manufacturing now. That idea transcends politics.”

The company declined to identify specific countries involved in the sales discussions or provide additional details about ongoing negotiations.

Established by former U.S. Army Special Operations personnel approximately one year ago, Powerus initially focused on civilian drone applications including agricultural fertilizer distribution and wildfire suppression. The company is now rapidly expanding into military drone production.

Recent fundraising efforts brought in $60 million from investors, and the company plans to access additional capital through a reverse merger with a Trump-owned entity that trades on the Nasdaq and operates several Florida golf courses. This merger strategy allows private companies to become publicly traded more quickly by acquiring existing public companies rather than conducting traditional initial public offerings.

The venture targets a portion of the Pentagon’s $1.1 billion allocation designed to strengthen domestic drone manufacturing capabilities, filling gaps created when the previous Trump administration prohibited such imports from China.

Since their father’s return to office, the Trump sons have diversified their investments beyond traditional real estate and hospitality ventures into cryptocurrency, prediction markets, and federal contractors producing rocket components and rare earth materials.

When asked about potential conflicts of interest last month, Eric Trump responded: “I am incredibly proud to invest in companies I believe in. Drones are clearly the wave of the future.”

The Trump Organization, where both sons serve as executives, did not respond to requests for comment, though the company has previously rejected conflict of interest allegations. The brothers have indicated they plan to pursue business opportunities more aggressively during their father’s current term, citing their perceived restraint during his previous presidency.

ORLANDO, Fla. — Two state governors have approved new legislation mandating enhanced citizenship verification for voters, as comparable federal measures championed by President Donald Trump remain stuck in congressional debate.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed the legislation on Wednesday, prompting civil rights organizations to immediately file a federal lawsuit claiming the new requirements will create barriers for eligible voters.

Starting January 1st, the Florida measure will demand voters present birth certificates, passports, or naturalization papers to prove citizenship when election officials question their eligibility by comparing voter registration data with motor vehicle department records.

Civil rights advocates argued in their federal court filing in South Florida that “Many eligible voters do not have these documents and cannot obtain them for a variety of reasons — including because they were born without a birth certificate in the segregated South, because their documents were destroyed in a hurricane, or because they cannot afford the hundreds of dollars it costs to replace them.”

President Trump has been vigorously promoting similar federal voting legislation that would require documentary citizenship proof for federal election registration, including U.S. passports, naturalization certificates, or birth certificates combined with government-issued photo identification. The House approved the measure, but it stalled in the Senate before lawmakers’ spring break.

Florida’s new law also eliminates credit cards, student identification cards, and retirement community IDs as acceptable voting identification, while mandating that driver’s licenses display citizenship status beginning in July 2027.

Governor DeSantis defended the legislation as enhancing Florida’s electoral system security and transparency. “In Florida, we will always stand up for election integrity,” the Republican governor stated.

Mississippi’s version, also signed Wednesday, mandates local voter registration officials conduct additional citizenship verification when applicants cannot provide driver’s license numbers on their forms. The law, effective July 1st, also directs the secretary of state to perform yearly voter roll audits using U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement online databases to identify potential non-citizens who may need to verify their voting eligibility.

“This is another win for election integrity in Mississippi (and America),” Republican Governor Tate Reeves wrote on social media. “We will continue to do everything in our power to make it infinitely harder – with a goal to make it impossible – to cheat in our elections!”

The Southern Poverty Law Center warned the Mississippi law might prevent hundreds of thousands of residents from voting who lack passports, birth certificates, or whose names don’t match their birth documents due to marriage-related name changes.

This year, four Republican-controlled states – Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah – have passed laws strengthening citizenship documentation requirements for voters. Michigan advocates have gathered 750,000 petition signatures attempting to place a constitutional amendment regarding voter citizenship documentation on November’s ballot.

The Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature has also approved similar legislation, though it awaits Democratic Governor Laura Kelly’s decision. Kelly has until next week to sign or veto the bill and hasn’t announced her intentions publicly, despite regularly rejecting previous GOP election measures. Override supporters would require a two-thirds majority, but Republican opposition suggests the House may lack sufficient votes.

Kansas efforts to prevent non-citizen voter registration remain influenced by a significant political controversy – a 2013 requirement that first-time state voter registrants provide citizenship documentation.

That previous law prevented more than 31,000 eligible U.S. citizens from registering, representing 12% of all first-time Kansas registration attempts. Federal courts eventually ruled the law unconstitutionally burdened voting rights, and enforcement ceased in 2018.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has adjusted its strategy for downsizing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, presenting a revised proposal that would maintain a larger workforce than initially planned while still implementing substantial reductions.

The updated blueprint calls for reducing the bureau’s workforce from its current authorized level of 1,700 employees to approximately 550 staff members. This represents a significant change from the administration’s original goal of cutting personnel to around 200 workers.

Court filings and internal documents released this week detail the modified approach, which emerged from ongoing litigation between the CFPB’s employee union and Russell Vought, who serves as Trump’s budget director and acting head of the consumer protection agency.

The National Treasury Employees Union, representing bureau workers, has voiced strong opposition to the workforce reductions and pledged to fight any staffing changes.

“Vought’s insistence that CFPB can meet its statutory obligations with only one-third of the staff is laughable, and an insult to the intelligence of the judges. Everyone knows Vought doesn’t want CFPB to exist at all,” stated Cat Farman, who leads the CFPB’s union.

The staffing cuts would require federal court approval to move forward, as the union continues its legal challenge.

Trump administration officials defend the reductions as necessary due to budget constraints. Congressional lawmakers reduced the CFPB’s operating budget by nearly half through the One Big Beautiful Bill that Trump signed into law last year.

“It would be mathematically impossible to comply with the law without a workforce restructuring and reduction,” explained Geoffrey Gradler, the bureau’s deputy director.

If enacted, the proposed cuts would affect multiple divisions within the agency. The supervision unit, responsible for monitoring bank compliance with federal consumer protection and banking regulations, would lose approximately five out of every six positions. The enforcement division would see staff levels drop by roughly 80 percent.

Since Trump began his second term, the CFPB has largely ceased normal operations. Agency employees received instructions to halt their work shortly after the inauguration, with remaining activities focused primarily on reversing initiatives from the Biden administration and even some programs from Trump’s first presidency.

The consumer protection bureau became an early focus of the Department of Government Efficiency when Elon Musk led the initiative. Musk posted on social media platform X that the CFPB should “RIP” after DOGE personnel were assigned to the agency. The administration initially attempted to eliminate approximately 90 percent of the workforce, affecting around 1,500 employees, before a federal judge intervened to block the action.

Federal inspectors have uncovered 49 safety violations at the United States’ largest immigration detention center, revealing conditions that put detainees at risk of excessive force, illness, and other dangerous situations.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention Oversight conducted the congressionally required inspection during a three-day period in February at Camp East Montana located in El Paso, Texas, according to a report ICE published online this week.

The inspection documented 49 deficiencies, defined as violations of detention standards or policies, spanning areas such as force and restraint procedures, security protocols, medical treatment and additional concerns. This marked the first inspection report released by the oversight office since Camp East Montana was rapidly constructed and began operations last summer.

The violation count at this facility stands out dramatically compared to other detention centers. No other inspection conducted by the oversight office this year has found more than 13 deficiencies.

“This report is scathing. Camp East Montana gets an F,” said attorney Randall Kallinen, who represents the family of a 36-year-old detainee who died there in January — one of at least three deaths since its opening. “It’s very dangerous. Not only are the detainees in danger of excessive force, they are also in danger of improper or negligent medical care and mental health care, as well as danger from other detainees.”

These findings emerge as ICE’s parent organization, the Department of Homeland Security, has halted plans to purchase warehouses designed to accommodate 7,000 or more immigrants in single locations. According to ICE data from February 5, Camp East Montana operates as the largest detention facility, holding approximately 3,000 detainees daily, most of whom are men without criminal convictions.

The inspection occurred before ICE decided last month to remove the primary contractor, Acquisition Logistics LLC, following intense criticism regarding Camp East Montana’s conditions. Despite having no prior experience in detention operations, the company received a contract valued at up to $1.3 billion to construct and manage the facility. Both the company and its president, Ken Wagner, did not respond to requests for comment.

A more seasoned contractor, Amentum Services, assumed control of Camp East Montana operations on March 12. Federal records indicate their nearly $453 million no-bid contract for detention, transportation and medical services extends through September 30.

Detainees typically remain at Camp East Montana for days or weeks while awaiting deportation or transfer to other facilities.

U.S. Representative Veronica Escobar, an El Paso Democrat who has visited and spoken with detainees at the facility multiple times, described the inspection results as “a drop in the bucket of what is so profoundly wrong with that facility.” She noted detainees have repeatedly reported medical neglect and other issues.

Escobar stated conditions remain unchanged and questioned whether poor conditions are intentionally maintained to encourage detainees to accept voluntary deportation.

“ICE is completely uninterested in really creating any change or holding the contractor accountable,” she said.

An ICE spokesperson indicated the new contract will deliver enhanced medical care, increased on-site personnel and stronger ICE oversight.

The inspection report revealed multiple safety failures during Acquisition Logistics’ management period. Facility staff failed to document whether they performed mandatory checks designed to prevent self-harm and suicide attempts, issues that 911 records show have been significant problems at the location.

Acquisition Logistics declined to share staffing level information with ICE, preventing officials from determining whether personnel numbers were adequate for maintaining security, the report stated. In one case, a detainee escaped when no staff member was assigned to monitor perimeter fencing.

Inspectors discovered tools and equipment were “unsecured and unaccounted for throughout the facility” and staff did not maintain proper ammunition inventory records.

Security personnel who used or observed the use of force and restraints like handcuffs sometimes failed to complete required written reports, according to the findings.

Supervisors also neglected to document their observations, staff members failed to record or preserve video footage in certain instances, and the facility did not conduct post-incident reviews to evaluate whether chemical agents or other force methods were appropriately used.

Medical personnel failed to isolate a detainee showing tuberculosis symptoms, an airborne disease, and did not inform ICE about the case.

The facility also responded slowly to twelve medical care grievances filed by detainees, taking six to 14 business days to address complaints, the report noted.

Despite these issues, the report assigned the facility an “acceptable/adequate” rating and recommended ICE collaborate with the new contractor “to resolve the deficiencies that remain outstanding.”

The report disputed one frequent detainee complaint regarding insufficient food portions. It stated the food service program, operated by subcontractor Disaster Management Group, provided dietitian certification confirming the “average daily caloric provision of the menu” satisfied federal guidelines.

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that Attorney General Pam Bondi will be leaving her position at the Department of Justice.

In a social media announcement, Trump designated Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to take over as acting attorney general. However, sources close to the situation indicate the president has privately considered Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin for the permanent appointment.

Bondi’s departure concludes a turbulent period during which the Trump loyalist dramatically altered the Justice Department’s traditional independence from White House influence, implemented widespread dismissals of longtime department staff, and pursued investigations targeting the president’s political opponents.

Following his appointment, Blanche expressed gratitude on social media platform X, stating: “Thank you to President Trump for the trust and the opportunity to serve as Acting Attorney General.” He praised Bondi for leading the department with “strength and conviction.”

“We will continue backing the blue, enforcing the law, and doing everything in our power to keep America safe,” Blanche added in his statement.

Blanche brings extensive legal experience to the role, having previously served as a federal prosecutor before representing Trump as his criminal defense lawyer in two cases filed by the Justice Department during President Joe Biden’s term. He also played a crucial role defending the president in the New York hush money prosecution and was promoted to deputy attorney general under Bondi’s leadership last year.

Trump praised his outgoing attorney general in his Truth Social announcement, describing Bondi as a “loyal friend” and adding: “We love Pam, and she will be transitioning to a much needed and important new job in the private sector.”

The personnel change drew immediate reaction from Capitol Hill, with Republican Representative Nancy Mace welcoming the news. “I welcome it,” Mace declared in response to earlier speculation about Bondi’s potential removal.

“Bondi handled the Epstein Files in a terrible manner and seriously undermined President Trump,” Mace stated, referencing her ongoing criticism of the department’s management of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents.

Bondi’s tenure faced mounting pressure over several controversial issues, particularly the Justice Department’s management of files connected to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking case, which generated significant criticism from conservative allies despite her close ties to Trump. She also encountered difficulties fulfilling Trump’s expectations regarding prosecutions of political adversaries, with courts and grand juries rejecting multiple investigations.

The former Florida attorney general initially promised upon taking office that politics would not influence Justice Department operations. However, she quickly launched investigations into Trump’s opponents, prompting widespread criticism that the law enforcement agency had become a vehicle for advancing the president’s personal and political interests.

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that Attorney General Pam Bondi will no longer serve in her role, bringing to a close a turbulent period during which the former Florida attorney general dramatically altered the Justice Department’s traditional independence from presidential influence and conducted widespread dismissals of career staff while aggressively pursuing investigations into Trump’s political adversaries.

The decision comes after months of intense criticism surrounding the Justice Department’s management of documents connected to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking case, which drew harsh condemnation from conservative supporters despite Bondi’s loyalty to Trump. Additionally, Bondi faced challenges in fulfilling Trump’s expectations to pursue criminal charges against his political opponents, with several investigations being dismissed by courts or grand juries, while others remain without filed charges.

Trump has designated Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to serve temporarily in the top position, although sources close to the matter indicate the president has privately considered Lee Zeldin, who currently leads the Environmental Protection Agency, for the permanent appointment.

When Bondi assumed leadership of the department last year, she promised to avoid political interference in Justice Department operations. However, she rapidly initiated investigations targeting Trump’s critics, prompting widespread concern that the law enforcement agency had become a weapon for settling political scores and advancing the president’s personal interests.

Her leadership brought unprecedented chaos to the department, including the termination of career prosecutors viewed as insufficiently devoted to Trump and the voluntary departure of hundreds of additional staff members. Her exit adds to a pattern of instability at the Justice Department that has characterized Trump’s presidency, with several attorneys general either forced out or stepping down after failing to satisfy his expectations for the position.

Bondi disputed claims that she had injected politics into the Justice Department, arguing her goal was to rebuild the institution’s reputation following what she characterized as excessive actions by President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, which had pursued two federal criminal cases against Trump. Her supporters maintained she redirected the department’s focus toward addressing illegal immigration and violent crime, bringing necessary reforms to an agency they believed had unfairly targeted conservatives.

Bondi’s public support of the president represented a dramatic shift from previous attorneys general, who typically maintained careful distance from the White House to preserve the neutrality of investigations and prosecutions. Bondi positioned herself as Trump’s primary advocate and defender, offering praise and support during congressional testimony and displaying a banner featuring his image on the Justice Department building’s exterior.

She advocated for ending what she termed the “weaponization” of law enforcement that she claimed occurred during the Biden administration, despite assertions from Biden’s attorney general Merrick Garland and special counsel Jack Smith that their decisions were based on facts, evidence, and legal principles. Critics argued that Bondi herself had politicized the agency to serve the president’s agenda.

“You’ve turned the People’s Department of Justice into Trump’s instrument of revenge,” Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary committee, said at a February hearing.

During that hearing, Bondi delivered an aggressive performance while providing limited substantive responses, angrily attacking Democratic questioners with personal insults, celebrating Trump’s impact on stock market performance — “The Dow is up over 50,000 right now” — and openly declaring her alignment with a president she portrayed as a victim of past impeachments and investigations.

Even Republican lawmakers eventually questioned her leadership, with the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee issuing a subpoena last month requiring her to participate in a private interview regarding the Epstein documents.

During Bondi’s tenure, the department launched investigations into numerous Trump opponents, including Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, New York Attorney General Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey, and former CIA Director John Brennan. The prominent prosecutions of Comey and James ended quickly when a judge dismissed the cases, ruling that the prosecutor who filed them had been illegally appointed.

While Trump frequently praised and supported Bondi publicly, he also displayed signs of frustration with her progress in prosecuting his rivals. In one notable social media message last year, Trump urged Bondi to accelerate prosecutions of his opponents, including James and Comey, stating: “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.”

Bondi supervised the departure of thousands of career employees through both terminations and voluntary resignations, including attorneys who had prosecuted violent attacks against police during the January 6, 2021 Capitol incident, along with environmental, civil rights, and ethics enforcement officials, counterterrorism prosecutors, and others.

She faced significant difficulties managing early missteps involving the Epstein documents that frustrated conservatives hoping for explosive government revelations about the case, which has long captivated conspiracy theorists. Bondi herself contributed to conspiracy theories during a 2025 Fox News Channel appearance by suggesting that Epstein’s “client list” was available on her desk for examination. The department subsequently admitted that no such document existed.

Bondi faced ridicule after arranging to distribute binders of Epstein documents to conservative influencers at the White House, only for it to be discovered that the materials contained no new information. Despite promises that additional files would be made public, the Justice Department announced in July that no further releases would occur, leading Congress to pass legislation forcing the agency to comply.

The Epstein document mishandling prompted extraordinary public criticism from White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, a close personal friend of Bondi’s, who told Vanity Fair that the attorney general “completely whiffed.” The Justice Department’s eventual release of millions of pages of Epstein files did little to reduce criticism, prompting a House committee with support from five Republicans to subpoena Bondi for sworn testimony.

Bondi, who served as Trump’s defense attorney during his first impeachment trial, was his second choice to lead the Justice Department after former Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida withdrew his nomination amid scrutiny over sex trafficking allegations.

SAN FRANCISCO — Federal attorneys have filed an appeal challenging a court decision that prevented the Pentagon from imposing penalties on artificial intelligence company Anthropic following a contract disagreement over military AI applications.

Justice Department lawyers submitted their appeal notice Thursday in San Francisco federal court, seeking to overturn U.S. District Judge Rita Lin’s ruling from the previous week.

Judge Lin’s decision prevented the Defense Department from designating Anthropic as a supply chain threat and stopped implementation of President Trump’s social media order directing federal agencies to cease using the company’s Claude chatbot system.

The judge criticized what she called “broad punitive measures” implemented by the Trump administration and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, describing them as seemingly arbitrary and potentially devastating to Anthropic’s business. She particularly questioned Hegseth’s use of unusual military powers typically reserved for foreign enemies.

“Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government,” Lin wrote.

Pentagon leadership strongly criticized the ruling, with U.S. Defense Undersecretary Emil Michael, who serves as the Pentagon’s top technology official, calling Lin’s decision a “disgrace” on social media. He argued it would interfere with Hegseth’s “full ability to conduct military operations with the partners it chooses.”

Lin delayed implementation of her ruling for one week, providing the Pentagon time to file their appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She clarified that her order doesn’t force the Pentagon to purchase Anthropic’s services or prevent switching to alternative AI providers.

The AI company has simultaneously pursued a separate, more focused legal challenge in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., targeting a different Pentagon regulation aimed at labeling Anthropic a supply chain threat.

The conflict between Trump, Hegseth, and Anthropic became public on February 27th following failed contract negotiations. The breakdown occurred when the company insisted on restrictions preventing its AI technology from being used in fully autonomous weapons systems or for surveilling American citizens. Pentagon officials maintained they should have unrestricted use of Claude for any lawful military purpose.

Multiple organizations filed court documents supporting Anthropic’s position, including Microsoft, various industry associations, technology workers, former military commanders, and a coalition of Catholic theologians.

Mississippi’s legislature has approved legislation that would make distributing abortion-inducing drugs a felony offense carrying up to a decade in prison, sending the measure to Republican Governor Tate Reeves for his signature.

Legal scholars warn the criminalization could result in the imprisonment of desperate Mississippi residents and discourage physicians from prescribing these medications for legitimate medical uses, including treating postpartum bleeding and managing miscarriage complications.

The restrictions on abortion pills were incorporated into broader drug trafficking legislation that received approval Tuesday with a 76-38 House vote and 37-15 Senate passage. The GOP holds majorities in both legislative chambers.

“I think we’re going to end up trapping a lot of people into the criminal justice system simply because they want to have autonomy over their own bodies,” said Rep. Zakiya Summers, a Democrat from Jackson, who voted against the bill.

Republican Representative Celeste Hurst from Sandhill, who authored the amendment, stated her goal was preventing abortion medications like mifepristone and misoprostol from reaching Mississippi.

“The intent is to keep doctors from out of state from circumventing our current law,” Hurst told Mississippi Today.

However, Mississippi faces virtually insurmountable challenges in prosecuting out-of-state providers who mail abortion pills across state boundaries, according to Mary Ziegler, an abortion law specialist and professor at University of California at Davis School of Law. Protective legislation in states where abortion remains legal shields providers, patients and assistants from external investigations, legal action and criminal charges, Ziegler explained to Mississippi Today.

“I think lawmakers are imagining this will be primarily used against doctors or drug manufacturers in blue states,” Ziegler said. “But it will be much harder for prosecutors to actually get those people into court than it will be for them to get someone whose partner has these drugs.”

The legislation’s ambiguous wording makes it particularly problematic, Ziegler noted. While the bill specifies that possession becomes criminal only with distribution intent, Ziegler anticipates Mississippi residents using the medications personally could face prosecution.

The clinical exemption language also lacks clarity. The measure states Mississippi healthcare providers would face charges only when prescribing abortion-inducing medication specifically to terminate pregnancies, not when treating miscarriages or stopping hemorrhaging. Even with this exception, the bill will likely create a chilling impact on medical care, Ziegler warned.

In both scenarios, Ziegler explained, “the differentiator is intent, which is really, really hard to prove.”

Such legislation stems primarily from anti-abortion advocates’ frustration that abortion rates have risen in recent years, Ziegler observed.

The Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs ruling in a Mississippi case eliminated constitutional abortion protections. While initially hailed as a major anti-abortion victory, national abortion numbers have actually climbed since then, largely through expanded access to mailed abortion medications.

“That’s kind of a hollow thing for the state if that happens and then the number of abortions doesn’t go down,” Ziegler said. “It’s like, what did you really accomplish?”

Republican Senator Daniel Sparks from Belmont, among six legislators who finalized the bill’s language, told Mississippi Today he backed the amendment to strengthen enforcement of Mississippi’s abortion prohibition.

“The state of Mississippi has been pretty clear of where they are about their pro-life position,” Sparks said. “If people are circumventing that through the mail or through other mechanisms, then I think we’re trying to be consistent with what the law is.”

Democratic Senator Bradford Blackmon from Canton, who opposed the legislation, called it “outrageous,” “ridiculous” and “unnecessary” to classify abortion medication alongside controlled substances and impose one to ten-year prison sentences. Ultimately, Blackmon argued, the law will disproportionately harm low-income women.

“The wealthy Mississippians are still going to be able to go where they want to get abortions,” Blackmon said.

Legal representatives for Mahmoud Khalil, a former graduate student at Columbia University battling removal from the United States, have requested that Judge Emil Bove remove himself from the appeals court panel considering his case due to Bove’s prior position as a senior Justice Department administrator who handled investigations of student demonstrators.

This week, Khalil’s legal team petitioned the entire bench of 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals judges — excluding Bove — to examine and overturn a January decision by a three-judge 3rd Circuit panel that moved the Trump administration closer to detaining and removing the pro-Palestinian advocate.

In his capacity as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Justice Department, Bove “directed immigration enforcement investigations and decisions against student protesters on college campuses,” including Columbia University, according to Khalil’s attorneys.

The immigration enforcement activities overseen by Bove “demonstrates the existence, or at least the appearance of, a conflict of interest” that should prevent him from participating in Khalil’s appeal, his lawyers argued.

Since September, Bove has served as a judge on the Philadelphia-headquartered 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Before joining the Justice Department, he worked as one of President Donald Trump’s defense attorneys, handling his criminal cases including the New York hush-money prosecution that resulted in Trump’s conviction on 34 felony charges.

The recusal determination rests solely with Bove. Justice Department attorneys representing the government in Khalil’s appeal “sees no basis for recusal but defers to Judge Bove,” court documents indicate.

Speaking through the 3rd Circuit court, Bove refused to provide comment.

When undergoing judicial confirmation, Bove recognized that his Justice Department role, which involved supervising criminal and civil cases nationwide, “could give rise to actual or potential conflicts” and pledged to step aside “in cases that I was personally involved in should any such matter come before the court.”

Khalil, who holds legal permanent residency status, became the first individual whose detention was made public during enforcement actions targeting non-citizens who openly opposed Israel and its military operations in Gaza.

He continues living in the United States with his American citizen wife and their infant son while challenging the January decision that determined a New Jersey federal judge who ruled in his favor lacked authority to handle the case. Federal statutes mandate that detention and removal challenges must first proceed through the separate immigration court system, the ruling stated.

The three-judge panel’s 2-1 ruling did not address the central question in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s attempt to remove Khalil from the country based on his campus activities and criticism of Israel violates constitutional protections. He subsequently spent three months confined in a Louisiana immigration detention facility, causing him to miss his son’s birth.

The Trump administration has characterized Khalil as leading activities “aligned to Hamas,” although they have not provided evidence supporting this assertion and have not charged him with any criminal wrongdoing. They have also alleged he failed to provide complete information on his permanent residency application.

Khalil, who was born in Syria to Palestinian parents and possesses Algerian citizenship, has rejected these accusations as “baseless and ridiculous,” characterizing his arrest and detention as a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”

The government justified Khalil’s arrest using a rarely invoked law that permits the removal of non-citizens whose political views are considered threatening to U.S. foreign policy objectives.

In February 2025, one month prior to Khalil’s arrest, Bove helped write a memorandum regarding the Justice Department’s creation of a task force focused on “Investigating and prosecuting acts of terrorism, antisemitic civil rights violations, and other federal crimes committed by Hamas supporters in the United States, including on college campuses.”

Kansas legislators have enacted new protections for pro-life pregnancy centers after successfully overturning Democratic Governor Laura Kelly’s veto with substantial bipartisan support.

The legislation prohibits state and local government entities from mandating that pro-life clinics provide abortion services, distribute abortion medications, offer abortion counseling, make abortion referrals, or engage in any form of abortion advocacy. The override vote passed by significant margins in both chambers of the Kansas legislature.

Republican lawmakers have criticized Governor Kelly, claiming she supports women’s choice only when that choice does not involve carrying a pregnancy to term. The governor had initially blocked the measure before the legislative override made it law.

DENVER — A Colorado appeals court determined Thursday that a former county clerk who was found guilty in an election fraud scheme must receive a new sentence.

Tina Peters, who previously served as Mesa County’s clerk, is currently incarcerated for nine years following her conviction on state charges. She was found guilty of facilitating an unauthorized computer specialist’s access to her county’s voting system during a 2021 software maintenance procedure. Images and footage showing classified voting system passwords were subsequently shared on social platforms and a conservative news site.

The Colorado Court of Appeals panel determined that the sentencing judge made an error by factoring in Peters’ ongoing advocacy of election fraud theories during her 2024 sentencing hearing. The appeals court has returned the matter to a trial court for new sentencing proceedings.

Peters has gained significant support within election conspiracy circles, with President Donald Trump applying pressure on Colorado officials to secure her freedom.

During her original sentencing before Judge Matthew Barrett, Peters showed no remorse and maintained that her actions were motivated by a desire to expose what she perceived as electoral fraud for the public benefit. Barrett strongly criticized her, labeling her a “charlatan” who had exploited her official role to “peddle snake oil.”

Peters held the clerk position in Mesa County, located in Colorado’s western region, and was convicted by a jury in this Republican-leaning area that has historically favored Trump.

Trump has warned of implementing “harsh measures” against Colorado if the state refuses to release Peters. Last February, Trump claimed Colorado was “suffering a big price” for its refusal to free her.

Democratic Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser has characterized the Trump administration’s actions as conducting a “revenge campaign” by restricting federal funding and terminating federal programs due to the state’s stance on Peters.

The Justice Department became involved in Peters’ release efforts during her state appeal process. Federal prison officials attempted to transfer Peters to a federal facility. When these attempts were unsuccessful, Trump issued a pardon for Peters, though Colorado officials say this symbolic gesture doesn’t affect her state-level convictions.

However, Democratic Governor Jared Polis indicated in January that he might consider clemency for Peters, describing her sentence as “unusual and harsh” for someone with no prior criminal record convicted of non-violent offenses.

Peters faced conviction on multiple charges: three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, plus individual counts of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty, and failure to comply with secretary of state requirements.

Peters’ defense team acknowledged that she used a local resident’s security credentials, falsely claiming to employ him, which allowed an associate of MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to duplicate the Dominion Voting Systems election server during routine 2021 software maintenance.

Her attorneys argued that Peters’ motivation was solely to safeguard election records and investigate potential unauthorized system access during ballot processing. They maintained she never intended for the information to become public.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security funding crisis appears destined to continue into next week as House lawmakers consider adopting a Senate proposal they had earlier turned down, which would provide money for most agency operations while excluding immigration enforcement divisions.

The standoff entered its 48th day Thursday without any breakthrough, as both congressional chambers held brief procedural meetings lasting only minutes. However, Republican leaders and President Donald Trump have now united behind a strategy to provide complete DHS funding through a two-phase approach. This alignment represents a shift from the separate strategies that led Congress to depart for spring break last week without resolving the crisis.

During Thursday’s short sessions, Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota set aside the House proposal for a 60-day funding extension covering the entire department. The House then convened briefly without addressing the bipartisan Senate measure negotiated with Democrats, though Thune expressed optimism about future passage.

“I don’t know the particulars around what the House will do with it,” Thune told reporters. “My assumption is, at some point, hopefully, they’ll move it.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Thune announced Wednesday their decision to revisit the Senate bill, which provides funding for most DHS operations while excluding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol. Republicans plan to pursue funding for those agencies later through partisan spending measures that could require months to complete.

Success for either approach remains uncertain, and the strategy may still encounter resistance from within GOP ranks despite Trump’s endorsement.

Johnson’s acceptance of the dual-track approach represents a dramatic shift from his position less than a week ago, when he dismissed it as a “joke” and stated he was “quite convinced that it can’t be that every Senate Republican read the language of this bill.”

While Johnson now appears supportive, winning over his own caucus may prove challenging after a significant number of House Republicans criticized the Senate-passed legislation last week.

House Republicans planned to conduct a conference call Thursday evening to discuss their next moves.

When asked about how Republican leadership and Trump came together after their apparent disagreements a week earlier, Thune referenced “a number of conversations.”

“The thing that some people want to do, we can’t do,” Thune explained. “And so you have to figure out what’s in the realm of the possible. And you have to just continue to define reality for people.”

Democrats in both chambers supported last week’s Senate funding plan, which passed with bipartisan backing. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York criticized Republicans Wednesday for their delayed response.

“Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction,” Schumer said.

Despite the recent progress, the most conservative members are likely to demand complete funding for all of Trump’s immigration and deportation programs.

“Let’s make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again,” Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania wrote on X. “If that’s the vote, I’m a NO.”

The budget package Trump wants prepared for later this year is anticipated to fund ICE and Border Patrol through the rest of his presidency, aiming to protect those agencies from future Democratic opposition to his immigration enforcement policies. Trump has requested this legislation reach his desk by June 1.

Thune recognized potential obstacles to this path, including attempts to broaden the bill’s scope. He emphasized keeping it “as narrow and focused as possible” to accelerate passage.

“We need to kind of move with haste,” he stated. “It’s probably not a likely magnet for all these other issues.”

Most DHS workers have continued reporting for duty during the shutdown, though thousands have worked without compensation. As more Transportation Security Administration officers called in sick, air travelers faced growing frustration with extended wait times at certain airport security checkpoints. These delays appeared to diminish this week as agents began receiving back pay following Trump’s executive order.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump has been considering the removal of Attorney General Pam Bondi due to dissatisfaction with her performance in the role, according to reports from major news outlets Wednesday.

The president’s concerns reportedly center on what he perceives as insufficient aggressiveness in pursuing his political adversaries and issues with how she has managed the Jeffrey Epstein investigation documents, The New York Times reported.

According to the report, which cited four anonymous sources with knowledge of the discussions, Trump has considered replacing Bondi with Lee Zeldin, who currently serves as Environmental Protection Agency Administrator. CNN confirmed similar reporting about these internal conversations.

Neither the White House nor the Justice Department provided responses to requests for comment from Reuters regarding these reports.

When asked about the situation by The New York Times, Trump stated: “Attorney General Pam Bondi is a wonderful person and she is doing a good job.” A representative for Bondi pointed to the president’s statement when contacted by the newspaper.

Bondi accompanied the Republican president to the Supreme Court Wednesday during oral arguments for a case involving birthright citizenship.

Political observers note that Trump has abandoned traditional practices meant to keep federal law enforcement separate from political influence.

During his campaign, he promised retaliation following the numerous legal challenges he faced after his first presidency concluded in 2021. He has maintained his public criticism of those he considers opponents and has urged Bondi’s Justice Department to pursue criminal charges against them.

Following Trump’s return to office in January 2025, federal prosecutors have pursued cases against several high-profile figures including former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook, and former national security adviser John Bolton.

White House officials have stated that Trump is fulfilling his campaign commitments to reform what he characterizes as a justice system “weaponized” by former Democratic President Joe Biden.

The Jeffrey Epstein investigation documents have created additional challenges for Bondi, with a congressional committee issuing a subpoena requiring her testimony in their related inquiry.

Bondi previously served as Florida’s state attorney general and defended Trump during his first impeachment proceedings while he was in his initial presidential term.

She became Trump’s second selection for the nation’s top law enforcement position after his initial nominee, former Representative Matt Gaetz, removed himself from consideration before the release of a congressional ethics investigation that determined he had purchased sex and drugs from women and obstructed congressional proceedings.

WASHINGTON – Congressional leaders moved closer to resolving a nearly seven-week Department of Homeland Security funding impasse early Thursday morning when the Senate took steps to allow the House of Representatives to vote on a funding measure extending through September 30.

The legislation, which the Senate approved late last week, does not include additional money for immigration enforcement operations that are already well-funded.

House representatives were scheduled to convene at 8:30 a.m., though it remained uncertain whether they would immediately consider the Senate-passed measure.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune addressed an almost empty chamber to advance efforts to resolve the DHS funding standoff. He effectively eliminated a 60-day temporary funding bill that the House had previously approved but lacked sufficient Senate support to advance.

The Senate had dismissed that House measure on Friday before entering recess, signaling clear opposition to the temporary approach.

On Wednesday, Republican leadership from both chambers announced they had negotiated an agreement to finally resolve the DHS shutdown. However, questions remained about whether rank-and-file House Republicans would back the compromise.

If the House approves the Senate version, the legislation would proceed to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature.

WASHINGTON — A crucial federal agency plans to vote Thursday on President Donald Trump’s proposed White House ballroom addition, just days following a federal judge’s decision to stop construction work on what would represent the most significant structural modification to the historic building in over seven decades.

The National Capital Planning Commission, which oversees construction approvals for federal properties in the Washington area, will proceed with Thursday’s vote since U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s Tuesday decision impacts actual construction work rather than the planning approval process, according to commission spokesperson Stephen Staudigl.

However, even with anticipated agency approval, the judge’s decision and ongoing legal battle surrounding the ballroom may delay progress on a signature project Trump hopes to finish before his term concludes in early 2029. The ballroom represents one of several modifications the Republican president has planned for the nation’s capital to establish his permanent mark during his presidency.

Thursday’s vote was originally scheduled for March but got delayed due to the overwhelming number of people who registered to speak at the commission’s monthly session. Public comments were largely critical of the ballroom proposal.

Prior to Thursday’s vote, commissioners will also review design modifications to the 90,000-square-foot ballroom addition that Trump revealed during his Air Force One flight back to Washington from his Florida residence on Sunday.

The revised plans eliminate a massive staircase from the building’s south side and include an open porch on the west side. Design professionals and project opponents had criticized the original staircase as oversized and impractical since it provided no actual ballroom entrance at its peak.

While Trump offered no explanation for these modifications, a White House official indicated the president had reviewed feedback from the National Capital Planning Commission and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, which gave project approval earlier this year, along with public input.

The official, speaking anonymously due to lack of authorization to discuss ballroom design publicly, mentioned that additional exterior “refinements” had been implemented and that lead architect Shalom Baranes would present these changes Thursday.

The ballroom’s current estimated cost of $400 million reflects significant expansion in both scale and budget since Trump initially unveiled the project last summer, explaining the need for proper guest hosting space beyond lawn tents. Trump demolished the East Wing in October with minimal advance notice, and site preparation plus underground construction have continued since. Officials indicated above-ground building work wouldn’t begin until April at the earliest.

The 12-member National Capital Planning Commission operates under chairman Will Scharf, a senior White House aide who has publicly supported the ballroom addition. The president selects three commission members, with Trump appointing two additional White House officials alongside Scharf.

Trump moved forward with the project before obtaining input from either the National Capital Planning Commission or the Commission of Fine Arts, which he restructured with allies and supporters.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a private nonprofit, filed suit after Trump demolished the East Wing last fall for the ballroom addition — a facility nearly double the mansion’s size. Trump claims private donations from wealthy individuals and corporations, including himself, will fund the project, though taxpayer money covers underground bunkers and White House security enhancements.

The trust requested temporary construction suspension until Trump presented the project to both commissions and Congress for approval. Judge Leon granted this request but specified his order would take effect in two weeks and permit security-related construction to continue.

That security work proceeded Wednesday as new Associated Press photographs showed the former East Wing site active with construction equipment and cranes reaching skyward.

Judge Leon, nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, stated in his ruling: “The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” He determined the National Trust for Historic Preservation would likely prevail because “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”

Trump challenged the requirement for Congressional approval of his project.

“We built many things at the White House over the years. They don’t get congressional approval,” he told reporters in the Oval Office following the ruling.

Congressional representatives from House and Senate committees overseeing the project did not respond to requests for comment. Congress is currently in spring recess.

WASHINGTON — During his first major televised address since military operations began in Iran, President Donald Trump asked the American people for patience Wednesday evening, promising that all military goals would be achieved “shortly” as public support for the conflict continues to decline.

The president adopted a more measured tone during his roughly 20-minute speech, stepping back from the aggressive rhetoric that has characterized his recent statements while global markets remain volatile and Iran continues to strike at regional infrastructure and American military installations despite suffering significant damage.

However, Trump’s commitment to “finish the job” failed to calm nervous investors, as oil prices continued climbing and Asian markets dropped following his declaration that American forces would maintain their intense campaign against Iran.

The president provided no specific details regarding ongoing diplomatic efforts with Iran that might lead to the swift resolution he claims could occur within weeks. Notably absent from his remarks were the expected criticisms of NATO partners for their reluctance to assist in reopening the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz shipping lane, which White House officials had indicated would feature prominently in his address.

Trump indicated that intensive military operations would persist for another two to three weeks, though he avoided specifying an overall timeline for ending the war. Instead, he made an appeal for American forbearance.

“We are in this military operation, so powerful, so brilliant, against one of the most powerful countries for 32 days, and the country has been eviscerated and essentially is really no longer a threat,” Trump stated. “This is a true investment in your children and your grandchildren’s future. The whole world is watching, and they can’t believe the power, strength and brilliance.”

The president faces the challenge of negotiating with an adversary that remains defiant while managing growing American war weariness.

A majority of Americans view the recent military campaign against Iran as excessive, with many expressing concern about rising fuel costs, according to an AP-NORC survey conducted in mid-March, approximately two weeks after hostilities began. Despite Trump’s deployment of additional naval vessels and personnel to the Middle East, roughly 59% of Americans consider the military response disproportionate.

Additionally, 45% express significant worry about affording gasoline in the coming months, a substantial increase from the 30% recorded in an AP-NORC poll taken shortly after Trump’s reelection victory, when he pledged economic improvements and reduced living costs.

Trump acknowledged America’s historical endurance during wartime periods.

“American involvement in World War I,” he noted, “lasted one year, seven months and five days. World War II lasted for three years, eight months and 25 days. The Korean War lasted for three years, one month and two days. The Vietnam War lasted for 19 years, five months and 29 days. Iraq went on for eight years, eight months and 28 days.”

Prior to his televised remarks, Trump appeared to acknowledge domestic pressure to conclude the military campaign during a private White House Easter luncheon, suggesting the U.S. could “very easily” seize Iranian oil reserves. He expressed regret that Americans seemed to lack patience for such an undertaking.

“They want to see it end,” he observed, adding, “People in the country sort of say, ‘Just win. You’re winning so big. Just win. Come home.’ And I’m OK with that, too.”

Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut criticized Trump’s address as being “grounded in a reality that only exists in Donald Trump’s mind.”

Democratic lawmakers expressed frustration that the president offered no concrete strategy for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial shipping corridor that Iran has successfully blocked despite Trump’s claims of victory.

Addressing allies concerned about economic disruption from rising energy costs, Trump recommended they “buy oil from the United States of America” and “build up some delayed courage” to assist in securing the waterway. The president made no effort to address European criticism that he initiated the conflict without international consultation but now expects global assistance in managing its consequences.

“We are losing this war,” Murphy continued. “We cannot destroy all their missiles or drones, nor their nuclear program. Iran projects more power in the region than they did before the war, especially if they now permanently control the Strait of Hormuz. We are spending billions we don’t have and losing American lives in a war that is destabilizing the world and making us look feckless.”

Trump expressed cautious hope that Iran’s current leadership, following over a month of American and Israeli attacks that eliminated much of the previous Islamic Republic hierarchy, appears “less radical and much more reasonable.” While he avoided explicitly referencing his Monday ultimatum for Iran to reopen the strait or face strikes on energy facilities, he made clear his willingness to target Iran’s economic foundation.

“If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously,” Trump declared. “We have not hit their oil, even though that’s the easiest target of all, because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding. But we could hit it, and it would be gone.”

Significantly, Trump gave no indication of preparing for a ground invasion involving American forces.

He appeared to dismiss the possibility of deploying troops to secure Iran’s approximately 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium, explaining it “would take months” for Iran to access the material buried beneath debris from previous American bombing of nuclear facilities.

While Trump has cited various justifications for the military campaign, he has consistently maintained that a primary goal of joining Israel in the operation is ensuring Iran “never have a nuclear weapon.”

Throughout the conflict, however, he has shown increasing caution regarding how far he will go to fulfill his promise of completely dismantling Iran’s weapons program, including securing or destroying the near-weapons-grade nuclear material in Iran’s possession.

“We have it under intense satellite surveillance and control,” Trump said during his prime-time address. “If we see them make a move, even a move for it, we’ll hit them with missiles very hard again. We have all the cards. They have none.”

National Public Radio host Steve Inskeep conducted an interview with John Kirby, a former Rear Admiral who previously worked as a national security communications adviser, to discuss President Trump’s recent statements concerning military action involving Iran.

The conversation focused on analyzing the president’s public remarks about the ongoing conflict situation with Iran and its implications for U.S. foreign policy.

In a Wednesday evening national address, President Trump provided the American people with an update on the ongoing conflict in Iran, stating that military operations there are “nearing completion.”

During the televised speech, Trump laid out his administration’s goals for the Iranian military engagement while reviewing the progress that U.S. armed forces have achieved thus far in the operation.

A Washington planning panel is scheduled to consider President Donald Trump’s controversial White House ballroom proposal this Thursday, despite a federal court ruling earlier this week that halted the project.

The National Capital Planning Commission will meet to discuss and vote on what’s being called the “East Wing Modernization Project,” according to the panel’s official agenda. The commission’s chairman is Will Scharf, who previously served as Trump’s personal attorney.

Trump has described the massive expansion as a $400 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom that would be funded through private donations. The Republican president has called it a “defining addition to the White House and a lasting symbol of his presidency.”

This ballroom represents just one piece of Trump’s ambitious plan to transform Washington’s historic center. His broader vision includes constructing a 250-foot arch and undertaking extensive renovations at the Kennedy Center performing arts venue. Trump has already made significant changes to the White House grounds, including completely redesigning the Rose Garden and adding extensive gold detailing throughout the Oval Office.

Two federal agencies oversee major construction projects in the Washington area: the National Capital Planning Commission and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. Trump has appointed multiple members to both organizations.

The Justice Department has already filed an appeal following Tuesday’s court decision, which prevented the president from moving forward with ballroom construction at the location where the East Wing previously stood without first obtaining congressional authorization.

A federal judge granted the preliminary injunction after the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit. The nonprofit organization argued that Trump overstepped his executive powers when he ordered the demolition of the historic East Wing and began work on the replacement structure.

WASHINGTON – In a historic Supreme Court appearance Wednesday, President Donald Trump witnessed what appeared to be strong judicial resistance to one of his most controversial immigration policies.

Trump became the first sitting president to observe oral arguments involving his own administration’s case, watching as most of the nine justices expressed doubt about his executive order eliminating birthright citizenship for certain newborns.

The policy in question would strip citizenship rights from hundreds of thousands of infants born annually on American soil if neither parent holds U.S. citizenship or permanent legal status.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who has led the conservative-majority court for over twenty years, appeared particularly unconvinced by the administration’s legal reasoning, calling their constitutional interpretation “quirky.”

“I do not think that Chief Justice Roberts wants to go down in history as presiding over a court that ended birthright citizenship,” observed Kevin Johnson, who specializes in immigration law at the University of California, Davis.

The constitutional battle centers on the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which declares: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Lower courts previously blocked Trump’s directive, finding it violated this constitutional provision that has traditionally granted citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. territory, with limited exceptions for diplomatic families or enemy occupying forces.

During arguments, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the policy by citing concerns about “birth tourism,” where foreign nationals travel to America specifically to secure citizenship for their children.

“Eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen,” Sauer argued.

Roberts quickly countered: “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”

However, not every justice appeared opposed to the administration’s position. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito showed interest in arguments that birthright citizenship should only apply to those with “lawful domicile” in America, defined as “lawful, permanent residence within a nation, with intent to remain.”

Trump signed this executive order on his first day returning to office in January 2025, making it a cornerstone of his comprehensive plan to limit both legal and unauthorized immigration.

The Supreme Court’s apparent reluctance contrasts sharply with previous decisions that have generally supported Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts, including ending migrant humanitarian protections and permitting aggressive deportation raids.

Columbia University law school’s immigrant rights clinic director Elora Mukherjee suggested this case differs fundamentally from other immigration disputes.

“Birthright citizenship is core to our identity as a nation,” Mukherjee explained. “It is unlike any of the other contexts… which are not central to how all Americans live their lives and are not central to how we as a nation for generations have viewed ourselves.”

Constitutional law professor Ilya Somin from George Mason University noted that while the court has often deferred to Trump on immigration matters, “the weight of argument and precedent is strongly on one side here, more so than in most of the other cases.”

This potential setback follows another recent Supreme Court defeat for Trump, when justices struck down his global tariff program in February by a 6-3 margin.

That ruling prompted Trump to criticize the court harshly, calling justices who opposed him unpatriotic and labeling two of his own appointees – Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett – an “embarrassment to their families.”

Following Wednesday’s session, Trump continued his criticism: “The Supreme Court’s not been acting very well,” he said, suggesting certain justices he appointed want to demonstrate independence. “Stupid people,” he called them.

Johnson believes the court will likely respect both the clear language of the Citizenship Clause and the “long, unbroken history” of birthright citizenship, despite some justices exploring potential limitations.

“The questions of the justices touched on some possible cracks in the rule but it remains intact,” Johnson said.

Trump’s presence in the ornate courtroom is unlikely to influence the final decision, with a ruling expected by late June. As he observed the proceedings, the president could have noticed a marble sculpture above the judicial bench depicting “Majesty of the Law” – a figure holding a book symbolizing constitutional authority.

State legislators in Oklahoma are working on new legislation that would force government agencies to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement when people lacking legal immigration documentation seek public assistance programs. According to lawmakers, the initiative stems from encouragement by White House advisor Stephen Miller.

The proposed measure would require state officials to contact ICE whenever undocumented individuals apply for government programs including nutrition assistance or medical coverage. The reporting requirement would remain in effect even when these individuals are seeking benefits specifically for their children who qualify for such programs.

A Georgetown University law professor recently provided analysis of significant moments during Supreme Court oral arguments regarding birthright citizenship issues.

Stephen Vladeck, who teaches at Georgetown Law, spoke with NPR’s A Martinez about notable developments that emerged during the nation’s highest court proceedings on this constitutional matter.

The interview focused on Vladeck’s observations and insights from the Supreme Court session, offering legal perspective on the arguments presented before the justices.

On Wednesday, the nation’s highest court examined oral arguments in a significant constitutional case centered on citizenship acquired at birth. The justices posed various questions during the proceedings about this foundational legal concept.

The case represents a major constitutional challenge that could impact how citizenship is determined under current law. During the hearing, the nine justices explored different aspects of the legal issues at stake.

The Supreme Court’s consideration of this matter highlights ongoing national debates about constitutional interpretation and citizenship law. The court’s eventual ruling could have far-reaching implications for how these principles are applied going forward.

WASHINGTON — Congressional leaders are moving forward with a strategy to partially resolve the historic Department of Homeland Security shutdown, with the Senate potentially voting Thursday on legislation that would restore funding to most of the agency.

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune revealed their coordinated approach Wednesday, marking a shift toward a bipartisan Senate proposal after previous attempts failed to gain traction. The two-step strategy would immediately fund the majority of DHS operations while excluding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol from the initial package.

The Republican leaders plan to address funding for those immigration enforcement agencies through separate, party-line legislation later, though that process could extend for several months. President Donald Trump has endorsed this approach, despite potential resistance from conservative members of their own party.

“We appreciate and share the President’s determination to once and for all bring an end to the Democrat DHS shutdown,” Johnson, R-La., and Thune, R-S.D., stated.

Last week, House Republicans rejected the Senate’s proposal that excluded ICE and Border Patrol, instead modifying the legislation to provide 60-day funding for the entire department.

Wednesday marked the 47th day of the DHS shutdown. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer criticized the situation, stating, “Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction.”

Conservative lawmakers are expected to push back against the compromise, demanding complete funding for Trump’s immigration enforcement priorities.

“Let’s make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again,” Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., wrote on X. “If that’s the vote, I’m a NO.”

Thursday’s Senate session will be a brief procedural meeting where senators could advance the measure through unanimous consent, provided no member raises objections. If successful, the legislation would return to the House, which is also conducting a procedural session Thursday morning.

Trump has requested a separate budget package to fund ICE and Border Patrol through his entire term, aiming to shield these agencies from future Democratic opposition to his immigration policies. The president wants this legislation completed by June 1.

“We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” Trump declared.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries responded to the Republican announcement by saying, “It’s time to pay TSA agents, end the airport chaos and fully fund every part of the Department of Homeland Security that does not relate to Donald Trump’s violent mass deportation machine.”

Most Homeland Security employees have continued working throughout the shutdown despite missing paychecks, leading to increased absences among Transportation Security Administration workers. This resulted in lengthy security delays at major airports nationwide, though conditions have improved this week as agents began receiving back pay following a Trump executive order.

An Afghan refugee who escaped Taliban rule while living in upstate New York received a deportation notice to Uganda. A Cuban woman employed at a Texas Chick-fil-A was detained following a minor car crash and informed she would be sent to Ecuador.

Additional cases include a Mauritanian resident of Michigan facing removal to Uganda, a Venezuelan mother in Ohio designated for Ecuador, and numerous Bolivians and Ecuadorians nationwide ordered to Honduras.

These individuals represent more than 13,000 migrants who were residing legally in America while awaiting asylum decisions when they received unexpected third-country removal orders to nations where most have zero connections, according to Mobile Pathways, a nonprofit advocating for immigration transparency.

However, actual deportations remain minimal despite the administration’s push for increased removals. Due to unexplained policy modifications, many find themselves trapped in immigration uncertainty, prevented from presenting their asylum arguments in court while facing potential deportation flights to unfamiliar countries.

While some remain in detention facilities, the exact number is unknown. All have forfeited their legal employment authorization, which most possessed during their asylum proceedings, intensifying anxiety throughout immigrant communities.

This outcome may be intentional.

“This administration’s goal is to instill fear into people. That’s the primary thing,” stated Cassandra Charles, a senior staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, which opposes the Trump administration’s mass deportation policies. Advocates believe the threat of removal to unknown nations might pressure migrants to withdraw their immigration cases and voluntarily return home.

Recent developments suggest potential changes.

During mid-March, senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement legal officials instructed field attorneys within the Department of Homeland Security via email to cease filing new third-country deportation motions related to asylum cases. The Associated Press obtained this email, which provided no explanation. DHS has not publicly released this directive and failed to respond to inquiries about whether this suspension is permanent.

However, existing deportation proceedings continue.

A Guatemalan woman who claims she was imprisoned and repeatedly sexually assaulted by powerful gang members arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2024 with her 4-year-old daughter, requesting asylum. She subsequently learned she was pregnant with another child conceived during rape.

Last December, she attended a San Francisco immigration hearing where an ICE attorney requested her deportation.

The ICE attorney did not request her return to Guatemala. Instead, the attorney proposed sending the Indigenous Guatemalan highlands woman to Ecuador, Honduras, or Uganda.

She had never previously heard of Ecuador or Uganda.

“When I arrived in this country, I was filled with hope again and I thanked God for being alive,” the woman shared following the hearing, tears welling in her eyes. “When I think about having to go to those other countries, I panic because I hear they are violent and dangerous.” She requested anonymity, fearing retaliation from U.S. immigration officials or the Guatemalan gang network.

ICE attorneys, serving as immigration court prosecutors, received initial instructions last summer to file “pretermission” motions that terminate migrants’ asylum claims and enable deportation.

“They’re not saying the person doesn’t have a claim,” explained Sarah Mehta, who monitors immigration issues for the American Civil Liberties Union. “They’re just saying, ‘We’re kicking this case completely out of court and we’re going to send that person to another country.’”

Deportation orders accelerated in October following a Justice Department Board of Immigration Appeals decision that establishes legal precedent within the complex immigration court system.

The ruling from three judges — two appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi and one remaining from the first Trump administration — authorized removing asylum-seeking migrants to any third country where the U.S. State Department determines they won’t face persecution or torture.

Following this decision, the government dramatically expanded the practice of terminating asylum claims.

More than 13,000 migrants have received deportation orders to designated “safe third countries” after their asylum cases were dismissed, based on San Francisco-based Mobile Pathways data. Over half the orders designated Honduras, Ecuador, or Uganda, with remaining cases distributed among nearly three dozen other nations.

Deported migrants can theoretically pursue asylum and remain in those third countries, even though some have barely functional asylum systems.

Immigration officials have disclosed minimal information about these third-country agreements, called Asylum Cooperative Agreements, or the deportees, making it unclear exactly how many have been removed to third countries through asylum removals.

According to Third Country Deportation Watch, a monitoring system operated by Refugees International and Human Rights First, fewer than 100 are believed to have been deported.

DHS described the agreements as “lawful bilateral arrangements that allow illegal aliens seeking asylum in the United States to pursue protection in a partner country that has agreed to fairly adjudicate their claims” in a statement.

“DHS is using every lawful tool available to address the backlog and abuse of the asylum system,” the spokesperson’s statement continued. Approximately 2 million asylum cases remain backlogged in the immigration system.

Deportations have proven far more complex than the government anticipated, limited by various legal challenges, international agreement scope, and restricted aircraft availability.

Mobile Pathways data reveals thousands ordered deported to Honduras despite a diplomatic agreement permitting only 10 such deportees monthly for 24 months. Dozens recently ordered to Honduras do not speak Spanish primarily, but are native English, Uzbek, and French speakers, among other languages.

While hundreds of asylum-seeking migrants have been ordered to Uganda, a senior Ugandan official confirmed none have arrived. U.S. authorities may be “doing a cost analysis” and avoiding flights with few passengers, Okello Oryem, Uganda’s minister of state for foreign affairs, told The Associated Press.

“You can’t be doing one, two people” at a time, Oryem explained. “Planeloads — that is the most effective way.”

Many immigration attorneys suspect the March email halting new asylum pretermissions could signal a shift toward other third-country deportation forms.

“Right now they haven’t been able to remove that many people,” said the ACLU’s Mehta. “I do think that will change.”

“They’re in a hiring spree right now. They will have more planes. If they get more agreements, they’ll be able to send more people to more countries.”

Congressional Democratic leaders filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday challenging President Donald Trump’s new executive order that would impose restrictions on mail-in ballot access, contending that the Constitution grants voting authority to states and Congress rather than the president.

This legal challenge represents the second major court fight over Trump’s attempts to control election procedures. Democratic opponents successfully defeated Trump’s previous efforts last year, with federal judges ruling his earlier executive order on election changes was likely unconstitutional.

On Tuesday, Trump revealed plans for his administration to create voter eligibility lists by state, with the Postal Service instructed to deliver ballots only to individuals meeting specific criteria. Legal experts point out the tight timeline poses challenges, as election officials must review voter databases before autumn ballot distribution begins in some areas by September, while questioning the accuracy of any federal voter lists.

The legal action involves Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, along with the Democratic National Committee and various party campaign organizations for congressional and gubernatorial races nationwide. Trump and senior administration officials are named as defendants.

“We will see him in court and we will beat him again,” Schumer said in a statement.

Democratic plaintiffs characterized Trump’s actions as an assault on fundamental democratic processes.

“President Trump has tried again and again to rewrite election rules for his own perceived partisan advantage,” their lawsuit said. It adds that “our Constitution’s Framers anticipated this kind of desire for absolute power,” dispersing the power to control elections to individual states and Congress.

Absentee voting has operated for over 100 years, gaining bipartisan support across red and blue states until 2020, when Trump began attacking the practice with unsubstantiated fraud allegations. This shift has decreased Republican participation while increasing Democratic usage, providing Trump additional motivation to restrict the practice ahead of midterm elections that will decide congressional control.

Ironically, Trump frequently uses mail-in voting himself, including during a Florida special election last month.

Following his return to the White House, Trump has attempted to interfere with state election administration, promoting repeatedly debunked claims about fraudulent activities costing him the 2020 election. Extensive investigations, including Republican-led reviews, found no evidence of widespread fraud in that election.

Despite these findings, Trump has demanded his administration “take over” voting operations in Democratic regions, initiated a 2020 election investigation based on conspiracy theories, and unsuccessfully lobbied Congress for legislation creating additional voting barriers, including mandatory in-person documentation of citizenship during registration. That proposal remains stalled in the Senate due to Democratic resistance.

WASHINGTON — During his Wednesday evening national address amid rising gas prices and ongoing inflation concerns, President Donald Trump made several statements about the U.S. economy and Iran that appear to distort key facts, according to fact-checkers.

Among his assertions, Trump declared: “We were a dead and crippled country after the last administration and made it the hottest country anywhere in the world by far, with no inflation.”

However, economic data shows the administration he took over left behind a relatively strong economy. During 2024, the final year of Joe Biden’s term, the nation’s gross domestic product expanded by 2.8% when adjusted for inflation — outpacing nearly every other wealthy nation globally except Spain. The economy also maintained steady growth from 2021 to 2023. Under Trump’s current term, economic expansion has actually slowed to 2.1% last year, with a 43-day government shutdown contributing to reduced growth in the final quarter.

Additionally, inflation hasn’t disappeared as claimed. February’s consumer price index showed a 2.4% year-over-year increase, still exceeding the Federal Reserve’s 2% goal.

Regarding Iran, Trump stated: “Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders’ death. They’re all dead. The new group is less radical and much more reasonable.”

This characterization appears questionable given current Iranian leadership. Following the February 28 Israeli airstrike that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the conflict’s outset, Iran appointed his son Mojtaba to the position — someone considered even more hardline than his predecessor. The ongoing war has strengthened Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, while civilian officials acknowledge having minimal control over the Guard’s operations.

Trump also claimed: “This murderous regime also recently killed 45,000 of their own people who were protesting in Iran.”

No verified sources support such a high casualty figure. The Human Rights Activists News Agency, a U.S.-based organization with a track record of accuracy regarding Iranian demonstrations, confirmed just over 7,000 deaths during nationwide protests that peaked in January. While acknowledging thousands more may have died, communication restrictions make verification extremely challenging. Iran’s government reported 3,117 deaths on January 21.

On energy independence, Trump declared: “We’re now totally independent of the Middle East, and yet we are there to help. We don’t have to be there. We don’t need their oil.”

While the United States leads global oil production and imports only 8.5% of its oil from the Persian Gulf region in 2025, Middle Eastern conflicts still impact American consumers. As University of Chicago energy analyst Sam Ori explained before Trump’s address, oil prices are “set in a global market,” meaning “a disruption anywhere affects the price everywhere.” U.S. crude oil prices have jumped over 50% since the Iran conflict began, pushing average gasoline prices above $4 per gallon this week.

Trump also touted “record-setting investments coming into the United States, over $18 trillion.”

No evidence supports this investment figure. Based on company announcements, foreign government statements, and White House documentation, this number appears significantly inflated and speculative. The White House website lists $10.5 trillion, which includes some commitments from the Biden era. A January study questioned whether more than $5 trillion in investment pledges from major trading partners would actually materialize.

Finally, Trump repeated his claim that “Obama gave them $1.7 billion in cash.”

This characterization misrepresents the transaction’s nature. While the Obama administration did transfer approximately that amount to Iran, it wasn’t a gift but rather settlement of a decades-old debt. Iran had paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment in the 1970s that was never delivered due to the government’s overthrow and severed diplomatic ties. Following the 2015 nuclear agreement, both nations settled the matter with the U.S. paying the original $400 million plus roughly $1.3 billion in accumulated interest.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump addressed the nation Wednesday evening, April 1, 2026, providing updates on ongoing military operations and celebrating recent achievements, as recorded by The Associated Press:

The president opened his remarks by praising NASA and the astronauts aboard Artemis II, noting the historic mission will travel farther than any previous crewed spacecraft. “It will be traveling further than any manned rocket has ever flown and will very substantially pass the moon, go around it and come back home from a distance that has never been done before,” Trump stated. “God bless those four unbelievable astronauts.”

Trump then turned to military matters, detailing Operation Epic Fury, which he said began one month ago against Iran. According to the president, U.S. forces have achieved significant victories in just four weeks of combat. “Tonight, Iran’s navy is gone. Their air force is in ruins. Their leaders, most of them, terrorist regime, they led, are now dead,” Trump declared. He added that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard command structure is being destroyed and their missile capabilities severely damaged.

The president claimed unprecedented military success, stating: “Never in the history of warfare has an enemy suffered such clear and devastating large-scale losses in a matter of weeks.”

Trump also referenced military action in Venezuela, describing it as completed “in a matter of minutes.” He said the U.S. now works with Venezuela as “joint venture partners” in oil and gas production, helping America achieve energy independence from the Middle East.

Explaining the rationale for Iranian operations, Trump emphasized his longstanding opposition to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “From the very first day I announced my campaign for president in 2015, I vowed that I would never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” he said. He characterized Iran’s government as having chanted “Death to America, death to Israel” for 47 years and blamed them for numerous attacks on American forces and the October 7 attacks in Israel.

The president detailed previous actions against Iran during his presidency, including the elimination of General Qassem Soleimani and withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement. He criticized former President Obama’s deal, claiming it included $1.7 billion in cash payments that Iran used to advance their weapons programs.

Trump revealed that in June, he ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in “Operation Midnight Hammer,” using B-2 bombers to destroy nuclear sites. When Iran attempted to rebuild elsewhere, he said it proved their continued commitment to nuclear weapons development.

The president outlined clear military objectives: dismantling Iran’s ability to threaten America, eliminating their navy and air force, and destroying their defense infrastructure. “Our armed forces have been extraordinary. There’s never been anything like it militarily,” Trump stated.

Acknowledging casualties, Trump honored 13 American service members killed in the operation. “Twice this past month, I have traveled to Dover Air Force Base,” he said, describing meetings with families who asked him to “finish the job.”

Trump thanked Middle Eastern allies including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain for their support. He addressed rising gas prices, blaming Iranian attacks on commercial oil tankers, but emphasized America’s energy independence through increased domestic production.

Highlighting economic strength, the president pointed to record stock market performance and massive foreign investment. “We built the strongest economy in history,” Trump declared, citing $18 trillion in investments and 53 record stock market highs in one year.

Looking ahead, Trump warned of intensified military action over the next two to three weeks. “We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong,” he stated. He said regime change wasn’t the goal but occurred due to leadership casualties, with new leaders being “less radical and much more reasonable.”

The president threatened to target Iran’s electrical infrastructure if no agreement is reached, while noting oil facilities remain untouched to allow for potential rebuilding. He emphasized complete military superiority: “We are unstoppable as a military force.”

Putting the conflict in historical perspective, Trump compared the 32-day operation to much longer previous wars, from World War I through Iraq. “The country has been eviscerated and essentially is really no longer a threat,” he concluded.

Trump ended his address by promising a future free from Iranian aggression and nuclear threats. “The United States will be safer, stronger, more prosperous and greater than it has ever been before,” he said. “May God bless the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, and may God bless the United States of America.”

President Donald Trump used a nationally televised address Wednesday evening to justify his administration’s approach to the ongoing U.S.-Israeli military conflict with Iran, claiming American forces were close to achieving their objectives while continuing to threaten further military action against the Islamic Republic.

The 19-minute prime-time speech came as Trump faces mounting pressure from rising global oil prices and declining public support for his handling of the month-long conflict.

Several key themes emerged from the president’s remarks:

SEEKING AN EXIT STRATEGY

Addressing a war-weary American public and declining poll numbers, Trump claimed U.S. forces had eliminated Iran’s naval and air capabilities, severely damaged its missile and nuclear programs, and would continue striking targets “extremely hard” for the next two to three weeks.

However, despite stating that American military forces were close to achieving their goals “very shortly,” the president avoided providing a specific timeline for concluding the military operations.

Trump’s decision to continue issuing threats while sending contradictory signals is unlikely to reassure nervous financial markets or address concerns from an American public that has shown minimal enthusiasm for the largest U.S. military engagement since the 2003 Iraq invasion.

The president’s inconsistent messaging throughout the conflict has increased uncertainty, with Trump alternating between calls for diplomatic solutions and threats of additional military strikes while U.S. forces continue building up in the region.

HORMUZ STRAIT CONCERNS

Trump’s Wednesday remarks left unclear whether U.S. military involvement might conclude before Iran reopens the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial shipping lane that Iran currently controls, creating what experts call the most severe global energy crisis in recent memory.

Instead, he reiterated his position that nations dependent on Persian Gulf oil should bear responsibility for reopening and protecting the waterway, arguing the U.S. doesn’t require energy imports from that region. However, Western partners have been reluctant to join a conflict that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initiated without prior consultation.

Security experts warn this approach could leave Iran maintaining substantial control over the strait, through which one-fifth of global oil and natural gas shipments pass.

Gulf region allies may also oppose a rapid American withdrawal, potentially leaving them facing a damaged but still hostile neighboring country.

OBJECTIVES ACHIEVED?

While Trump highlighted U.S. military achievements in the conflict, uncertainty remains about whether he has accomplished his primary stated objective: preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

More than a month into the conflict, Iran continues to possess enriched uranium stockpiles that could potentially be processed into weapons-grade material, though most is believed buried underground following U.S.-Israeli bombing campaigns in June.

In a notable policy shift, Trump told Reuters earlier Wednesday that he no longer prioritized securing Iran’s enriched uranium because it was “so far underground” and could be monitored through satellite surveillance. Iran has consistently denied pursuing nuclear weapons.

Despite Trump’s assertions about destroying Iran’s conventional military strength, the country has shown its remaining missile and drone capabilities can still threaten Israel, U.S. Gulf partners, and American military facilities in those nations.

Trump’s previous demands for overthrowing Iran’s religious leadership have not materialized. While U.S.-Israeli airstrikes eliminated numerous top officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, they have been succeeded by even more hardline replacements, including Khamenei’s son. U.S. intelligence assessments indicate Iran’s government structure remains largely functional.

POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS

Trump’s address, his first prime-time speech since the conflict began February 28, was initially expected to address American concerns about the interventionist policies of a president who campaigned for re-election promising to avoid “stupid” military interventions.

However, Trump, whose advisors have urged him to prioritize domestic economic concerns, only briefly acknowledged Americans’ worries and seemed to dismiss their financial hardships as temporary problems that would resolve once fighting ends.

“Many Americans have been concerned to see the recent rise in gasoline prices here at home,” he said. “This short-term increase has been entirely the result of the Iranian regime launching deranged terror attacks against commercial oil tankers of neighboring countries that have nothing to do with the conflict.”

While Trump’s MAGA supporters have largely remained loyal, his hold on his political base could erode if economic consequences, including elevated gas prices, continue as his Republican Party fights to maintain Congressional control in November’s midterm elections.

Trump’s overall approval rating has dropped to 36%, marking his lowest level since returning to the White House, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll completed Monday.

The Department of Homeland Security announced Wednesday that Secretary Markwayne Mullin has eliminated a controversial requirement that forced all contracts above $100,000 to cross his desk for approval.

The policy reversal follows an internal review of how the department handles its contracting procedures, with officials stating that Mullin aims to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used effectively.

Mullin made this change within his first week on the job, having been sworn in less than seven days ago to replace former Secretary Kristi Noem.

Democratic lawmakers had pressured Noem earlier this month to abandon the policy, arguing in correspondence that it had “resulted in widespread delays in funding and mismanagement.”

“Today, the Secretary rescinded the $100,000 contract review memo,” department officials announced. “This will streamline the contract process and empower components to carry out their mission to protect the homeland and make America safe again.”

According to CBS News reporting citing a homeland security official, contracts valued above $25 million will still require the secretary’s direct review, though Reuters could not independently verify this information.

In their March 18 correspondence to the department, Democratic representatives stated: “To ensure that DHS effectively performs its critical national security functions on behalf of the American people, we call on DHS to rescind the $100,000 approval policy and return to the prior approval threshold, given the clear risk of mismanagement, confusion, and self-dealing.”

Congressional Democrats have expressed support for Mullin’s decision to reverse the policy.

The Democratic Party filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday seeking to halt President Donald Trump’s executive order that would impose stricter requirements on mail-in voting across the United States, claiming the directive unlawfully interferes with states’ constitutional power to oversee elections.

The executive order, signed Tuesday, instructs the Trump administration to create a registry of verified U.S. citizens who are qualified to vote in every state. The directive also calls for using federal databases to assist state election administrators in confirming voter eligibility and mandates that absentee ballots only be mailed to individuals appearing on each state’s authorized mail-in voting roster.

When asked for a response, the White House had not provided comment by press time. Speaking Tuesday, Trump expressed confidence that legal challenges to his order would not succeed in court.

WASHINGTON — Top congressional Republicans unveiled their strategy Wednesday to resolve the ongoing Department of Homeland Security funding crisis, attempting to bridge differences that left lawmakers in deadlock before their recent recess.

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune revealed a dual-phase approach in a joint announcement. Their initial step would restore funding to most DHS operations, excluding Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agencies. A separate legislative effort would later address funding for those immigration-related departments through Republican-only legislation.

The strategy faces uncertain prospects, with potential resistance even within GOP ranks despite backing from President Donald Trump.

“We appreciate and share the President’s determination to once and for all bring an end to the Democrat DHS shutdown,” Johnson, R-La., and Thune, R-S.D. stated.

This approach mirrors what senators originally envisioned when they unanimously approved bipartisan funding legislation last Friday. While the Senate could potentially pass identical legislation as early as Thursday, the timeline for House consideration remains unclear. Republicans anticipate several months will be needed to complete the second phase addressing ICE and Border Patrol funding.

Last week, House Republicans rejected the Senate’s bipartisan measure, instead modifying it to provide 60-day funding for the entire department.

The impasse persisted as Congress departed for a two-week break, extending the shutdown to its 47th day Wednesday.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer attributed the GOP’s revised approach to Democratic solidarity, stating “for days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction.”

The joint announcement signals renewed cooperation between Thune and Johnson after their relationship fractured when Johnson, responding to House Republican pressure, dismissed Thune’s original proposal.

The Republican leaders hope their new direction will persuade doubtful GOP members, though the most conservative legislators are expected to demand complete funding for Trump’s immigration enforcement initiatives.

“Let’s make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again,” Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., posted on X. “If that’s the vote, I’m a NO.”

Johnson faces uncertainty about gathering sufficient House support to bring lawmakers back to Washington before their spring break concludes in mid-April.

The targeted spending bill planned for later this year would fund ICE and Border Patrol through Trump’s remaining term, aiming to shield these agencies from future funding disruptions caused by Democratic opposition to the president’s immigration policies.

Trump addressed the shutdown earlier Wednesday through social media, urging Republicans to fund DHS immigration components through legislation that wouldn’t need Democratic backing. He requested the bill reach his desk by June 1.

“We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” Trump declared.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries issued a statement saying “It’s time to pay TSA agents, end the airport chaos and fully fund every part of the Department of Homeland Security that does not relate to Donald Trump’s violent mass deportation machine.”

Most Homeland Security employees continue working during the shutdown, though thousands have been operating without paychecks. This situation prompted increased Transportation Security Administration worker absences, creating lengthy security delays at major airports nationwide. These disruptions began improving this week as agents started receiving retroactive pay following a Trump executive order.

The Caribbean nation of the Bahamas will conduct an early general election on May 12, Prime Minister Philip Davis announced Wednesday, as the island country confronts significant affordability challenges for its residents.

Davis revealed his decision on the same day his administration eliminated value-added taxes on basic grocery items, a move designed to address living expenses that rank as the sixth most expensive globally according to data from Numbeo.

The prime minister plans to dissolve the current parliament on April 8 and officially announce the election campaign the next day. The vote was originally scheduled for mid-October.

“As we move through this election season, I ask every Bahamian to remember one simple truth: wherever we may fall politically, we all love this country,” Davis stated.

Davis and his Progressive Liberal Party defeated the ruling Free National Movement during the previous election in September 2021.

The upcoming May contest will primarily feature competition between these two dominant political organizations, the PLP and FNM, although the Coalition of Independents, a smaller third party that has gained recent visibility, will also participate.

Throughout the Bahamas’ history as an independent nation, no third-party candidate has ever won the position of prime minister, and the last successful reelection of an incumbent prime minister occurred in 1997.

WASHINGTON — In his first significant policy change since taking office, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin eliminated a controversial spending restriction Wednesday that had created delays in federal disaster relief efforts across the country.

The newly sworn-in secretary reversed a directive requiring his personal sign-off on any Department of Homeland Security expenditure exceeding $100,000, a policy his predecessor Kristi Noem had put in place last June before President Donald Trump dismissed her in March.

Emergency management officials and lawmakers had heavily criticized the approval requirement, arguing it created significant delays in FEMA’s ability to distribute disaster response and recovery funding to communities in need.

A Department of Homeland Security representative confirmed Mullin’s decision to The Associated Press, stating the secretary “re-evaluated the contract processes to make sure DHS is serving the American taxpayer efficiently.”

According to the spokesperson, removing this requirement will make the contracting process more efficient and help distribute aid more effectively.

Josh Morton, who leads the International Association of Emergency Managers, welcomed the change. “We appreciate Secretary Mullin’s common-sense approach to this matter, and we look forward to working with him,” Morton stated.

The previous approval system had particularly impacted FEMA operations, since the agency regularly handles contracts and reimbursements far exceeding the $100,000 threshold when responding to natural disasters and other emergencies nationwide.

Morton described the former policy as creating “an untenable situation for emergency managers” and establishing obstacles that also affected disaster preparation and prevention programs, “putting Americans at increased risk from disasters.”

According to a recent analysis by Democratic Senate Homeland Security Committee members, the approval requirement had caused delays in at least 1,000 FEMA contracts, grants, and disaster reimbursements by September.

The policy faced intense criticism after media reports connected it to unstaffed emergency call centers and delays in sending FEMA Urban Search and Rescue teams to Texas during fatal flooding last July. Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, whose state continues recovering from Hurricane Helene’s 2024 damage, was among the harshest critics.

“You’ve failed at FEMA,” Tillis confronted Noem during a Senate hearing one day before her dismissal.

FEMA data reviewed by the AP shows approximately $2.2 billion in recovery and mitigation funding was awaiting DHS approval as of Wednesday.

During his March confirmation hearing, Mullin expressed optimism about FEMA’s mission. “It’s got a great mission, and I think people at FEMA want to do their job,” he told lawmakers, raising hopes he would address the agency’s recent challenges.

Mullin committed to maintaining “adequate staffing” at the agency after it lost more than 2,400 employees last year and indicated he was already reviewing candidates for a permanent FEMA administrator position, which remains vacant.

President Trump has repeatedly suggested eliminating FEMA entirely, calling the agency “very expensive and it really doesn’t get the job done” as recently as Tuesday.

Michael Coen, who served as FEMA chief of staff under the Obama and Biden administrations, said, “Hopefully this a step toward transparency and stability between FEMA and states.”

The department is conducting broader policy reviews, including halting purchases of new immigration detention warehouses this week while examining contracts approved under Noem’s leadership.

However, eliminating the spending approval rule may not immediately accelerate FEMA reimbursements to states, tribes, and territories, as the agency remains affected by the ongoing DHS funding standoff, now the longest government shutdown in American history at 46 days.

Although FEMA’s disaster response and recovery operations receive funding from a separate Disaster Relief Fund, that money is nearly depleted, a FEMA official warned lawmakers during a House hearing last week, with roughly $3.6 billion remaining. The pending DHS appropriations bill would add just over $26 billion to the fund.

Republican lawmakers indicated Wednesday that an agreement to end the shutdown could emerge within days.

A leading automotive industry organization is pushing for a major overhaul of how America funds its highway system, proposing to eliminate the federal gasoline tax in favor of vehicle-based fees.

John Bozzella, president of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation representing major manufacturers including General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, unveiled the proposal Wednesday. The plan would replace the current 18.4-cent per gallon federal gas tax with a weight-based fee applied to all vehicles.

The federal gasoline tax hasn’t been increased since 1993, and its purchasing power has declined by more than 60% due to inflation. Meanwhile, growing numbers of electric vehicles and improved fuel efficiency have further reduced gas tax collections, creating a widening gap between highway funding needs and available revenue.

Under the proposed system, the fee would function similarly to vehicle registration costs. “This policy would guarantee every vehicle on the road contributes something to maintaining America’s transportation network,” Bozzella explained. “Those driving older, less fuel-efficient vehicles or who travel long distances bear the financial burden. That’s not fair.”

The federal government has already transferred over $275 billion from general tax revenue to cover highway funding shortfalls since 2008, including $118 billion allocated through the 2021 infrastructure legislation.

Republican lawmakers have previously attempted to address the issue by targeting electric vehicles specifically. Last year, House Republicans introduced legislation calling for a $250 annual fee on electric vehicles and $100 on hybrid models, though the measure wasn’t included in final spending legislation.

Several states have already implemented their own electric vehicle fees to compensate for lost gas tax revenue. Some Republican senators recently proposed a $1,000 annual tax on electric vehicles for highway maintenance.

The debate highlights a fundamental challenge as transportation evolves. Currently, federal highway funding relies primarily on gasoline and diesel taxes, which electric vehicle owners don’t pay despite using the same roads.

Electric vehicle advocacy groups have argued against high EV fees, noting that the Electrification Coalition calculated the average gasoline-powered vehicle contributes only $88 annually in federal gas taxes, making a $250 EV fee disproportionate.

The current federal transportation funding authorization expires on September 30, setting up a potential legislative battle over how to finance America’s highway system going forward.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump will deliver a primetime address to the nation Wednesday evening regarding the ongoing military conflict with Iran, marking a critical juncture both domestically and internationally as he seeks to consolidate significant authority to continue the military campaign and advance his second-term priorities.

The president began Wednesday by becoming the first sitting commander-in-chief to attend a Supreme Court proceeding, representing an unprecedented extension of executive influence into judicial matters. He plans to conclude the day with his inaugural primetime White House speech about a military operation he initiated independently, bypassing congressional oversight.

While many Americans might otherwise be watching the historic Artemis II lunar mission launch this spring evening, Trump will redirect national focus to himself and the Iranian conflict that has claimed the lives of more than a dozen American military personnel with no clear resolution pathway visible.

Additional thousands of U.S. military forces are deploying to the Middle East region. Persian Gulf partners are pressing Trump to complete the military operation, contending that Tehran remains insufficiently weakened.

However, Trump himself has forecast that American involvement will conclude “within maybe two weeks.”

The presidential address to an attentive domestic and international audience will provide him a platform to detail his upcoming strategy: Will he proclaim success and indicate readiness to move beyond the Iranian situation?

Alternatively, is the president positioning for a ground assault by American forces — to secure Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles or control the Strait of Hormuz — that could thrust the U.S. into another extended Middle Eastern conflict?

Trump is rapidly nearing the 60-day threshold requiring congressional authorization under the War Powers Act to maintain military operations.

The administration’s declared objectives for the conflict, and its conclusion strategy, have broadened and evolved.

Officials report launching the joint U.S.-Israeli operation on February 28 to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons capability, diminish its ballistic missile arsenal, and destroy its naval forces. The aerial bombardment rapidly eliminated Iran’s senior leadership, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, though it stopped short of regime change. Khamenei’s son has assumed leadership.

Subsequent developments appeared to disrupt the administration’s strategy: Iran’s rapid and aggressive counterattacks, striking Gulf state neighbors and disrupting global oil transport through the Strait of Hormuz, causing energy costs to spike and creating strategic uncertainty.

Trump has criticized U.S. partners for insufficient participation in the conflict, while British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced plans for a diplomatic conference to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz following the fighting’s conclusion.

Trump is not anticipated to announce immediate peace negotiations in any format, according to a U.S. official familiar with speech elements, which continues being developed. The official requested anonymity to discuss the upcoming address.

However, this could potentially change.

Nearly every nation worldwide has stakes in Trump’s remarks, including those geographically distant from the conflict but experiencing elevated energy costs due to the war and Iranian counterstrikes.

The administration has condemned longtime U.S. partners for failing to assist in the fighting, with several European nations blocking airspace and base access while hesitating to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of global oil typically flows.

Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have indicated that NATO requires reevaluation following the Iranian conflict’s conclusion.

Trump has stated he is “seriously considering” departing the military alliance, which has served as a cornerstone of transatlantic cooperation and security since World War II’s end.

Trump informed Reuters prior to the speech that he intends to use the address to voice his dissatisfaction with NATO members.

The president cannot unilaterally exit NATO without legal challenges.

Following Trump’s initial presidency, then-President Joe Biden enacted legislation preventing any president from departing NATO without congressional approval. This provision, included in comprehensive defense legislation, was partially championed by Rubio, then a Republican senator.

“We’re going to have to re-examine the value of NATO and that alliance for our country,” Rubio stated Tuesday during a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity. “Ultimately, that’s a decision for the president to make, and he’ll have to make it.”

A NATO crisis, which appears developing, and Trump’s public criticism of U.S. allies will benefit longtime adversaries Russia and China, which have persistently sought to weaken or limit the alliance they view as threatening their territorial and political objectives.

Ukraine will monitor cautiously as Trump’s policies have substantially decreased U.S. assistance for its defense against Russian invasion.

Trump, who campaigned as the “America First” president promising to avoid endless military engagements, has not fully addressed political opposition from his supporter base regarding the Iranian conflict.

The American economy is experiencing turbulence, financial markets are fluctuating with Trump’s various war-related statements, and citizens face increased fuel costs as living expenses rise.

While the president frequently characterizes the inflationary high prices as temporary difficulties, these factors are contributing to a challenging November midterm election.

Some of his harshest criticism during the Iranian conflict’s early stages has originated from previously supportive media personalities in the MAGA sphere, including Tucker Carlson.

The nation’s highest court examined legal challenges Wednesday regarding President Trump’s executive action targeting birthright citizenship protections.

The judicial hearing occurred during a politically significant time for the Trump administration, as justices weighed arguments surrounding the controversial policy directive.

MIAMI — A prominent Washington lobbyist with close connections to President Donald Trump told a federal court he immediately ended his relationship with former Congressman David Rivera after discovering in 2020 that Venezuela’s government had given the Miami Republican a $50 million contract, destroying his assumption that both men were working to bring down Nicolás Maduro’s regime.

Brian Ballard has served as a key witness alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Rivera’s Miami trial, where the former congressman faces accusations of conducting unregistered lobbying work for Maduro’s administration.

The proceedings have revealed behind-the-scenes efforts during Trump’s first presidency involving secret lobbying by Trump associates and Venezuelan officials, plus a billionaire who allegedly channeled stolen oil revenues to Venezuela’s democratic opposition while simultaneously seeking partnerships for Maduro’s sanctions relief campaign.

While the initial charm campaign was unsuccessful, several participants — including acting President Delcy Rodríguez and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles — are now involved in Trump’s promise to “run” Venezuela.

Federal prosecutors claim Rivera transformed into a paid advocate for Maduro after departing Congress, using his long-standing friendship with fellow Cuban-American Rubio and other Republican contacts to pressure the White House into softening its Venezuela stance.

Rivera, 60, maintains his innocence, arguing he worked as a business consultant for a U.S. subsidiary of Venezuela’s government oil company, which would exempt him from Foreign Agents Registration Act requirements.

Following Ballard’s testimony about text messages, emails and lobbying documents that showed his growing suspicion of Rivera, defense attorneys requested a mistrial Tuesday, claiming prosecutors improperly implied Rivera attempted to involve Ballard in the alleged conspiracy. Judge Melissa Damian rejected the request.

Ballard developed friendships with Rubio and Rivera decades ago while building his lobbying business as the two served in Florida’s legislature. Ballard Partners later represented the Trump organization in Florida before becoming a Washington powerhouse. By 2025, the firm was earning $88 million in fees, surpassing all other lobbying companies according to official disclosures.

Early in Trump’s presidency, Ballard said Rivera approached him about representing Venezuela’s opposition. Since both men were known critics of the Venezuelan government, “anything we could do to help end the Maduro regime would’ve been very much of interest to me,” Ballard testified.

Additionally, Ballard was consulting with Rex Tillerson, Trump’s initial secretary of state choice, and used Rivera as a connection to then-Senator Rubio, who had reservations about the former ExxonMobil CEO’s Venezuela positions. Rubio testified last week that he also felt deceived by his friend.

A key figure for both Ballard and Rivera’s Venezuela involvement was Raúl Gorrín, a Caracas media mogul whose persistent efforts to influence Trump administration officials highlight the dangers of foreign influence operations in American politics.

Gorrín faced indictment in 2018 for allegedly bribing Venezuela’s treasurer with luxury yachts and show horses to secure illegal currency exchange arrangements. However, when Rivera introduced him to Ballard in 2017, the billionaire portrayed himself as a Trump supporter advocating democratic reform.

The three men traveled on Gorrín’s private aircraft to the Dominican Republic for meetings with Venezuelan opposition figures. Ballard also described visiting Gorrín’s Miami residence to meet Lilian Tintori, wife of Maduro’s most prominent imprisoned critic at the time, Leopoldo López.

Several months afterward, Gorrín’s media outlet, Globovision, signed an $800,000 agreement with Ballard’s company for assistance with U.S. expansion. Ballard expressed initial hesitation due to reports that Globovision had moderated its Maduro criticism under Gorrín’s ownership, but said he was convinced following research and Tintori’s support.

“She thought he was a good person, not a Maduro puppet,” he testified.

Ballard said he soon questioned the arrangement. He also revealed he was unaware that a firm partner had helped write a letter Gorrín wanted personally delivered to Trump in 2017, promising — from one businessman to another — to “devote every waking minute to a successful resolution of the crisis in Venezuela.” The Secret Service prevented the letter’s delivery.

When news emerged about Gorrín’s federal money laundering investigation, Ballard said he immediately ended the partnership.

“I finally said it’s not worth it,” he stated.

Ballard never recruited Venezuelan opposition members as clients. He offered to waive fees, but his requirement for public disclosure on the Justice Department’s website was considered too dangerous. He said Tintori worried it would provoke Maduro and threaten her husband’s safety.

After learning Gorrín remained involved and claimed to be providing financial support to Tintori, Ballard sent a February 13, 2017 text to Rivera’s co-defendant, former Rubio fundraiser Esther Nuhfer: “Please make sure the people you are dealing with understand the serious nature of the FARA laws.”

Two days following that message, Trump demanded López’s freedom, sharing an Oval Office photograph with Tintori, Rubio and Vice President Mike Pence.

López, currently in Spanish exile, said his wife never accepted money from Gorrín and accused Rivera of attempting to falsely connect him to the conspiracy charges Rivera now faces. He said masked, heavily armed military intelligence officers stormed his cell the same day his wife visited the White House.

“It was one of the worst raids I experienced in the four years I was imprisoned,” he recalled.

Unknown to Ballard, Rivera was simultaneously arranging meetings for Rodríguez in New York, Caracas, Washington and Dallas, prosecutors stated.

Rep. Pete Sessions was also participating. The Texas Republican attempted to facilitate a meeting between Rodríguez and Exxon’s CEO and secretly visited Caracas for a Maduro meeting arranged by Gorrín and Rivera. “My best to your family,” Sessions wrote beneath a letter to Maduro.

The congressman appears on the defense witness list. Rivera’s attorneys also sought testimony from Wiles, who registered as a Ballard lobbyist for Globovision, but the White House blocked it.

Prosecutors contend Rivera’s three-month, $50-million consulting agreement was actually a disguise as Venezuelan officials attempted to convince the Trump administration to restore normal relations. Ballard testified he first discovered it when Rivera was named in a 2020 lawsuit alleging he performed no actual work.

When he contacted his former friend to express his surprise, Rivera claimed the Trump administration knew he was collaborating with Maduro’s opponents, Ballard said. Rivera also referenced their Dominican Republic meeting three years prior, where he said the “plot was hatched” by Venezuela’s opposition.

“So you’re part of it too!!!,” Rivera texted, including crying-laughing emojis.

Ballard was furious and said he blocked Rivera’s phone number.

“I have nothing to do with this David,” he responded in a final message. “I don’t find it humorous at all.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hushed conversations and curious glances filled the Supreme Court chamber Wednesday as President Donald Trump made history by becoming the first sitting commander-in-chief to personally attend oral arguments from the public seating area.

The president, typically drawn to cameras and spotlight moments, sat quietly with his hands folded while the justices proceeded without acknowledging his unusual presence. This unprecedented move represented an extraordinary display of executive influence and privilege.

Accompanying Trump were Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as they observed their administration’s legal team argue in favor of the president’s executive directive to eliminate constitutional and legal protections for birthright citizenship.

Throughout the ninety-minute session, Trump remained attentive as justices from across the ideological spectrum challenged the administration’s attorney with pointed questions. Multiple justices, including three Trump personally selected for the bench, expressed skepticism about the proposed birthright citizenship limitations.

When opposing counsel began their presentation, Trump departed the courtroom. Within an hour, the president took to social media, writing: “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”

Approximately three dozen nations actually provide citizenship rights to children born within their borders. The president’s online statement represented another instance of his direct criticism targeting the court and individual justices.

Trump previously expressed shame regarding six justices who voted against his positions and questioned their loyalty to America. He particularly criticized Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both his nominees, describing them as “an embarrassment to their families.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, without naming Trump specifically, stated last month that personal attacks on federal judges pose dangers and “it’s got to stop.”

Legal scholars suggest Trump’s intimidation efforts, if that was the intent, will likely prove ineffective.

UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler noted that justices “pride themselves in their independence, even if some agree with much of Trump’s agenda.”

Harvard Law constitutional professor Richard Re compared Trump’s courtroom visit to “a reversal of the justices’ frequent appearances at the State of the Union address.”

“I don’t think the justices will be intimidated, no matter what the president does,” Re stated.

Trump’s presence brought unusual drama to the typically formal proceedings. Actor Robert DeNiro, a vocal Trump opponent, also attended the session, sitting in the special section designated for justices’ guests and relatives.

The two men did not interact during the hearing.

ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger celebrated a significant victory Wednesday when he revealed his office had secured $6.7 million in refunds for investors who were allegedly defrauded in a massive $156 million Ponzi scheme that targeted prominent Republican figures across Georgia and Alabama.

Though overseeing securities regulation has traditionally been part of Georgia’s secretary of state duties, Raffensperger has been highlighting his investigation into First Liberty Building & Loan losses while campaigning for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.

The secretary of state revealed that Bankers Life, which operates under Indiana’s CNO Financial Group, agreed to reimburse investments made by 46 individuals who put money into First Liberty through Timothy Nathaniel Darnell, a former financial adviser with the company.

“Bankers Life, as a company, chose to do the right thing and help the Georgians who lost everything in this alleged Ponzi scheme,” Raffensperger stated during a press conference.

The financial firm potentially faced legal consequences for inadequate supervision of Darnell and allowing him to market unapproved investment products.

So far, Raffensperger’s department has imposed $500,000 in civil penalties on three individuals and achieved an unusual legislative success by expanding his authority to assist securities fraud victims.

These actions occur while Raffensperger competes in a contentious primary field scheduled for May 19, which features Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, healthcare businessman Rick Jackson, and state Attorney General Chris Carr. All candidates seek to succeed Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, who cannot pursue a third consecutive term. Many Trump-supporting Republicans harbor resentment toward Raffensperger, primarily known for rejecting Donald Trump’s request to “find” votes to reverse Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential victory in Georgia. This securities case provides an opportunity for him to present a different image to GOP voters who might still consider supporting him.

Democratic candidates, meanwhile, aim to capture the governor’s mansion in battleground Georgia for the first time in nearly a quarter-century. Leading Democratic contenders include former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, party-switcher Geoff Duncan, former state Sen. Jason Esteves, and former state Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond.

First Liberty marketed itself as a lending institution offering high-interest short-term business loans while promising investors annual returns reaching 16%. However, a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit filed last year alleges that company leader and Republican activist Brant Frost IV misappropriated $17 million for personal use, family members, and connected businesses, while making additional loans that borrowers failed to repay.

Victims included a business operated by former Georgia GOP Chairman David Shafer, Alabama state Auditor Andrew Sorrell, and a political action committee under Sorrell’s Republican control. Party insiders report that numerous grassroots Republicans also suffered losses, with others attracted through advertisements on programs featuring conservative hosts like Erick Erickson, Hugh Hewitt, and Charlie Kirk.

Beyond civil penalties, Raffensperger’s office has recently recommended criminal prosecution for three individuals investigators claim helped recruit investors for First Liberty. These include Brant Frost V, son of the company leader; Fayette County school board member Randy Hough; and Darnell, who also serves as president of the Georgia Republican Assembly, an organization seeking to influence state Republican politics.

Both Frost V and Darnell have rejected allegations of misconduct. Hough has not responded to media inquiries. No criminal charges have been filed against anyone.

A court-appointed receiver is also working to recover investor funds. A March 23 receiver’s report revealed First Liberty collected approximately $156 million from investors and distributed $89 million in principal and interest payments, resulting in at least $65 million in losses. As of March 23, the receiver held $5.16 million in cash while pursuing recovery from nearly 30 defaulted First Liberty loans.

While Ponzi schemes occur frequently—including a suburban Atlanta man’s conviction in January for a $380 million operation—the involvement of prominent Republicans in First Liberty has generated increased political attention.

Republican state legislators attempted to transfer securities regulation from Raffensperger’s office to state banking authorities this year, citing his office’s failure to identify schemes before their collapse. However, the secretary of state, often targeted by Republican lawmakers, successfully defended against these efforts. He then achieved a legislative win by convincing the General Assembly to approve legislation enabling his office to collect victim restitution rather than only imposing fines on violators. Governor Kemp has yet to sign or veto this measure.

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republican leadership revealed their strategy Wednesday for restoring complete funding to the Department of Homeland Security and bringing a historic partial government shutdown to a close.

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune outlined their approach in a joint statement, indicating that GOP members in both chambers will implement President Donald Trump’s instructions to fully finance the department through dual legislative pathways in the upcoming days. The first route involves standard appropriations procedures, while the second utilizes a reconciliation measure that Republicans would likely need to advance independently later in the year.

However, success isn’t assured for either approach, and the plan is expected to encounter resistance from Democratic lawmakers and potentially from within Republican ranks as well.

“We appreciate and share the President’s determination to once and for all bring an end to the Democrat DHS shutdown,” Johnson, representing Louisiana, and Thune, from South Dakota, stated.

Legislative gridlock emerged last week when the Senate approved legislation that excluded funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol operations while abandoning Democratic proposals for new agency restrictions.

Meanwhile, House Republicans advanced their own measure providing complete DHS funding for a 60-day period.

The shutdown persisted as Congress members departed for a two-week break in their home states and districts. While Senate Democrats must collaborate on portions of the Republican plan, their willingness to participate remains uncertain.

As nationwide gasoline costs climb beyond $4 per gallon, lawmakers at federal and state levels are discussing temporary cuts to motor fuel taxes to ease the burden on drivers.

Currently, just Georgia and Utah have moved forward with eliminating all or portions of their gasoline taxes following fuel price increases driven by the conflict in Iran. Additional states are weighing similar measures. However, multiple factors may prevent policymakers from cutting gas taxes, including worries about state budgets, questions regarding effectiveness, and unknown duration of the ongoing war.

An examination of the numbers reveals the complexity of this policy debate:

The two states implementing gas tax relief chose markedly different strategies. Georgia implemented a 60-day elimination of its 33-cent per gallon gasoline tax after Republican Governor Brian Kemp approved the measure on March 20, becoming the first state to respond since the war began. Utah’s Republican Governor Spencer Cox signed legislation three days afterward to temporarily reduce 6 cents from the state’s 38-cent per gallon fuel tax. However, Utah’s six-month decrease doesn’t start until July 1.

According to Jeff Lenard, spokesman for the National Association of Convenience Stores, retail gas stations have averaged 38 cents per gallon markup over wholesale costs during the past five years. He noted their actual profits after operating costs are frequently less than half that amount. Additionally, daily oil barrel prices have fluctuated wildly throughout the Iran conflict — sometimes equivalent to approximately 40 cents per gallon, Lenard explained.

These figures matter because they demonstrate how complicated gas pricing can be. Suspending gas taxes doesn’t guarantee drivers will experience equivalent retail price decreases. This complexity has made Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis reluctant to repeat a gas tax suspension he implemented during 2022’s price surge.

“Our ability to influence the fuel prices are really marginal at best,” DeSantis stated in March, adding: “I don’t think the consumer really felt relief.”

California imposes the nation’s steepest gas tax at 61 cents per gallon, plus additional surcharges. This tax contributes to California maintaining America’s highest gas prices, averaging $5.89 per gallon Wednesday according to AAA. Multiple Democratic and Republican gubernatorial hopefuls have advocated for gas tax suspension. However, the proposal hasn’t gained momentum in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, where some worry about replacing lost revenue.

Maryland Republicans advocated for a 30-day gas tax pause. But the Democratic-led General Assembly rejected their efforts. A representative for Democratic Governor Wes Moore explained that a one-month suspension could create a $100 million gap in the state’s transportation funding while officials already face spending cuts and budget shifts to address projected statewide shortfalls.

A superior approach would involve ending the war, stated Moore spokesman Ammar Moussa, adding: “The best way to bring prices down is to address the source of the pain.”

Since the conflict started February 28, Trump has consistently claimed it might conclude quickly while simultaneously threatening to expand the conflict.

Whether states possess adequate funds to compensate for lost fuel tax revenue represents a crucial consideration. Georgia is utilizing its budget surplus. In Connecticut, Democratic state Senate leadership has proposed that Governor Ned Lamont could access approximately $330 million remaining in an emergency fund designed to respond to federal government actions, helping offset a suggested one-month suspension of the state’s 25-cent per gallon gas tax.

“The fund was created precisely for situations like this: when federal actions create hardship for Connecticut families,” Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney and Majority Leader Bob Duff stated.

A representative for the Democratic governor indicated Lamont is prepared to collaborate with legislators on “a smart and strategic pause to the state’s gas tax.”

Gas taxes typically fund construction, expansion, and maintenance of roads and bridges. Without shifting money from other sources, suspending gas taxes means reduced transportation project funding, including some already budgeted initiatives.

In South Carolina, state gas tax generates approximately $800 million annually, helping finance nearly $7 billion in projects from two-lane road safety improvements to major interstate interchange renovations. Republican Governor Henry McMaster fears major projects would require more time and money if tax revenue decreased. He characterized gas tax suspension as a “sort of knee-jerk reaction.”

“We’d like them all to be lower and lower,” McMaster said, “but that’s one we should not take any money out of.”

President Donald Trump issued a stark warning Wednesday, threatening to withdraw the United States from the NATO alliance after European member nations declined to deploy naval vessels to help clear the Strait of Hormuz near Iran, escalating his criticism of the military partnership.

Legal scholars remain divided on whether Trump possesses unilateral authority to exit the nearly eight-decade-old transatlantic alliance, despite his history of making significant policy decisions without legislative backing, many of which face judicial challenges.

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

While the Constitution grants the president authority to negotiate treaties with Senate guidance and approval from two-thirds of senators, it provides no specific guidance on withdrawing from existing treaties.

NATO TREATY PROVISIONS

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, established in 1949 to defend against Soviet aggression and serving as the foundation of Western security since, includes European nations alongside the United States and Canada.

The treaty’s Article 13 permits any member nation to exit after providing twelve months’ written notice to the U.S. government, which then notifies other member governments of the withdrawal declaration.

No NATO member has ever terminated its membership in the alliance’s history.

CURRENT U.S. LEGISLATION

Congress enacted legislation in 2023, signed by then-President Joe Biden, that prohibits any president from ending, suspending, or withdrawing from the NATO treaty without approval from two-thirds of the Senate.

The provision was incorporated as an amendment to the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, the comprehensive annual Pentagon policy legislation. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia and then-Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida co-sponsored the amendment.

Rubio, currently serving as Trump’s Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, stated Tuesday that Washington must reassess NATO relationships following the Iran conflict that commenced February 28 with American and Israeli airstrikes.

The defense authorization amendment additionally prohibits federal funding for any NATO withdrawal efforts.

TRUMP’S POSITION

Trump has maintained years of harsh NATO criticism. During his previous presidency in 2020, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that presidents hold exclusive treaty withdrawal authority, not Congress.

A Congressional Research Service analysis from February 2026 indicated that if court challenges arise, the executive branch could reference that legal opinion to argue the defense authorization amendment violates constitutional principles.

Speaking to Reuters Wednesday, Trump confirmed he would “absolutely” consider alliance withdrawal in a national address, expressing his “disgust with NATO.”

Trump’s statements followed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s refusal to reconfirm America’s commitment to NATO’s mutual defense obligations.

Policy experts suggest this commitment uncertainty, rather than legal constraints, represents the crucial factor.

“If the president and the military are not committed to NATO and European security, then I don’t think there’s much Congress can actually do to hold that back,” said Max Bergmann, a former State Department official who is now director of the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

POTENTIAL OUTCOMES

International law typically grants heads of state authority to withdraw from treaties when such withdrawal is permitted and proper procedures are followed.

American law remains less definitive, though presidents have exited multiple treaties without congressional consent, including Trump’s 2020 withdrawal from the 35-nation Open Skies treaty permitting unarmed surveillance flights over participating countries.

Should the matter reach federal courts, challengers would face significant obstacles, including demonstrating legal standing through personal stakes in the outcome to contest the withdrawal.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which frequently supports Trump’s positions, has never ruled on the substance of a treaty withdrawal case.

A federal appeals court has blocked the Trump administration from implementing new restrictions on billions of dollars in federal grants that support housing and services for homeless individuals across the country.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston declined Wednesday to overturn a lower court decision that prevented the Department of Housing and Urban Development from changing how it distributes money through the Continuum of Care program.

Circuit Judge Julie Rikelman, appointed by President Biden, warned that allowing the policy changes would create chaos for funding recipients and result in housing organizations closing their doors, leaving vulnerable people without shelter.

“In sum, the record paints a disturbing picture of the harms that would flow to the plaintiffs, their constituents, and the public from issuing a stay,” Rikelman wrote in the decision.

The case originated from a legal challenge filed by Democratic leaders from 20 states plus Washington, D.C., along with local governments and nonprofit organizations. HUD has not yet responded to requests for comment on the ruling.

According to attorneys representing some plaintiffs, the administration’s proposed changes could have affected more than $2 billion in grant money that supports 4,000 local housing coalitions nationwide.

“Because the appeals court refused to grant the federal government’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal, almost 200,000 people — many living with disabilities — will not be displaced from stable housing,” stated Jill Habig, who leads the Public Rights Project legal organization.

The dispute centers on the Continuum of Care program, which has operated since 1987 to help states, municipalities and nonprofits provide assistance to homeless populations, particularly veterans, families and disabled individuals.

For decades, the program has operated under a “housing-first” philosophy that emphasizes getting people into permanent homes without requiring them to first meet conditions like maintaining sobriety or finding employment. The grants also fund additional services including childcare, job training, mental health support and transportation.

The Trump administration has expressed criticism of the housing-first model. In November, HUD announced plans to restructure the grant program to emphasize temporary housing options that include work requirements and other stipulations.

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy in Providence, Rhode Island, ruled in December that HUD’s proposed changes violated federal law governing homeless shelter programs. She noted that Congress has consistently prioritized funding for stable, permanent housing solutions.

Following Congress’s passage of a February spending bill requiring HUD to continue existing Continuum of Care projects and distribute new grants, the administration requested that McElroy lift her injunction. This would have allowed some of the approximately $4 billion in program funding to fall under HUD’s revised guidelines.

However, McElroy refused the request, emphasizing the importance of protecting funding recipients from “upheaval and service gaps.” The administration subsequently appealed her decision, pointing to the new legislation, though plaintiffs argue the law never endorsed HUD’s funding approach.

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he’s collaborating with congressional Republican leaders to secure funding for immigration enforcement personnel using a legislative strategy that sidesteps Senate filibuster procedures.

In a Wednesday post on his Truth Social platform, Trump stated: “We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents.”

The president is coordinating with House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune on the initiative, which aims to boost resources for border security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

Trump set an ambitious timeline for the legislation, declaring: “I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st.”

The approach would utilize budget reconciliation procedures, allowing the measure to pass with a simple majority vote rather than the typical 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

WASHINGTON – Federal officials announced Wednesday they have initiated legal proceedings against Idaho state government over the state’s refusal to turn over voter registration records.

The Department of Justice confirmed the lawsuit was filed against Idaho for not complying with requests to provide the voter registration information.

The legal action represents the latest development in ongoing tensions between federal and state authorities regarding access to election-related documentation.

A federal court has determined that the Department of Homeland Security violated the law when it revoked immigration status from thousands of individuals who used the CBP One application to enter the United States.

The judge’s decision on Tuesday restores the legal immigration standing of all affected people who had their status canceled after entering through the CBP One system.

The ruling addresses concerns about the government’s handling of cases involving people who followed proper procedures using the official CBP One mobile application for requesting entry into the country.

In an unprecedented move, President Trump became the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court oral arguments regarding his own executive order on Wednesday morning.

The nation’s highest court heard arguments concerning Trump’s controversial executive order on birthright citizenship. The president’s motorcade arrived at the Supreme Court building as justices prepared to examine the constitutional questions surrounding the directive.

Speaking to reporters about his decision to attend the proceedings personally, Trump explained his reasoning. “I have listened to this argument for so long,” the president stated, indicating his desire to witness the arguments firsthand.

The president’s presence at the Supreme Court represents a break from traditional protocol, as sitting presidents typically do not attend oral arguments, particularly those involving their own policies or actions.

The case marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal challenges to presidential executive authority and constitutional interpretation of citizenship rights.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has determined that former President Donald Trump cannot use immunity protections to avoid civil lawsuits claiming his rally speech sparked the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta issued his decision Tuesday, finding that Trump’s comments during his “Stop the Steal” gathering on the Ellipse near the White House before the Capitol siege “plausibly” constituted incitement that falls outside First Amendment protections.

According to the judge’s ruling, the Republican former president lacks immunity for most of his January 6 actions, including his rally address and numerous social media messages posted that day. However, Mehta determined Trump maintains protection for official presidential actions, such as his Rose Garden statements during the unrest and communications with Justice Department personnel.

“President Trump has not shown that the Speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties,” Mehta wrote. “The content of the Ellipse Speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity.”

This 79-page decision marks another court determination that Trump may face accountability for the Capitol violence, though appeals are expected. The ruling paves the way for a potential civil trial in the same federal courthouse where Trump previously faced criminal charges related to January 6 before his 2024 election victory ended that prosecution.

Mehta had earlier declined to throw out these claims in a February 2022 decision, ruling then that Trump lacked presidential immunity from lawsuits filed by Democratic Congress members and Capitol police officers who worked during the January 6 events. That earlier ruling also found Trump’s rally statements potentially amounted to incitement without First Amendment protection.

The matter came back to Mehta following an appellate court decision that supported his 2022 ruling. The judge noted Tuesday’s immunity determination applies a more “rigorous” legal framework at this advanced litigation phase.

Mehta, appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, emphasized his recent decision does not represent a “final pronouncement on immunity for any particular act.”

“President Trump remains free to reassert official-acts immunity as a defense at trial. But the burden will remain his and will be subject to a higher standard of proof,” the judge stated.

During the rally preceding the mob’s disruption of Congress’s certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral win over Trump, the former president addressed his supporters. Trump concluded his remarks by declaring, “We fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Trump’s legal team maintained that his January 6 actions qualify for presidential immunity protection.

The lawsuit plaintiffs argued Trump cannot demonstrate he acted solely in his official presidential role rather than as a private citizen seeking office. They also cited Supreme Court precedent stating that office-seeking behavior exists beyond presidential immunity scope.

Representative Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who previously chaired the House Homeland Security Committee, filed suit against Trump, his personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani, and members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers extremist organizations regarding the January 6 riot. Additional Democratic Congress members subsequently joined this litigation, which was combined with the officers’ legal claims.

These civil lawsuits remained active despite Trump’s comprehensive clemency actions on his second term’s opening day, when he pardoned individuals, reduced sentences, and ordered dismissal of all 1,500-plus criminal cases connected to the Capitol siege. More than 100 law enforcement officers sustained injuries while protecting the Capitol from rioters.

The plaintiffs’ legal representation includes lawyers from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Damon Hewitt, the organization’s president and executive director, celebrated the ruling as a “monumental victory for the rule of law, affirming that no one, including the president of the United States, is above it.”

“The court rightly recognizes that President Trump’s actions leading to the January 6 insurrection fell outside the scope of presidential duties,” Hewitt said in a statement. “This ruling is an important step toward accountability for the violent attack on the Capitol and our democracy.”

WASHINGTON — Britain’s King Charles III is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress during a Washington visit planned for late April, marking the first occasion in more than three decades that a British monarch will speak before U.S. lawmakers.

Congressional leadership announced the historic address on Wednesday, noting it coincides with America’s 250th anniversary of declaring independence from Britain. The royal visit occurs during a period of diplomatic strain between the longtime allies.

Tensions have emerged as President Donald Trump’s “America First” approach has raised questions about U.S. dedication to European partnerships, while Britain has refused to back American military involvement in the conflict with Iran.

Despite these challenges, congressional leaders highlighted the enduring bond between both nations.

“The American experiment endures in no small part because of the British tradition from which it sprang,” wrote House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer in their invitation to Charles. “We believe an Address to Congress will provide a unique opportunity to share your vision for the future of our special relationship and reaffirm our alliance at this pivotal time in history.”

Across the Atlantic, some British Parliament members have urged Prime Minister Keir Starmer to call off Charles’s state visit in response to Trump’s criticism over Britain’s refusal to support the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran. Starmer has chosen to move forward with the visit, which may help reduce war-related tensions.

British royal state visits have long served as diplomatic tools to strengthen international relationships. Queen Elizabeth II last delivered a congressional address in 1991.

However, some legislators plan to use the royal visit to advance their probe into Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse network. Democratic Representative Ro Khanna has written to Charles requesting a private meeting between the king and Epstein abuse survivors.

“I respectfully ask that you privately meet with survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell’s abuse, so they may speak to you directly about the ways powerful individuals and institutions failed them. Survivors want this meeting,” Khanna stated in his letter.

Britain has faced intense examination of Epstein’s connections to influential government figures. Charles removed his brother, formerly Prince Andrew, from royal duties and stripped his titles last year following mounting pressure over Andrew’s Epstein associations.

Several American lawmakers have noted that accountability efforts regarding Epstein have progressed further in Britain and other European nations compared to the United States.

Epstein died by suicide in a New York detention facility in 2019 while facing trial. Maxwell received a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking but continues appealing her conviction, claiming new evidence reveals constitutional violations during her proceedings.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former Prince Andrew, continues to deny any criminal wrongdoing.

During a television interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Secretary of State Marco Rubio detailed four specific military targets the United States has established in its campaign against Iran, explaining how these objectives support broader American foreign policy strategy.

Speaking to Hannity, Rubio outlined the comprehensive approach: “We are going to destroy their air force. We have largely done that. We were going to destroy their navy, which we have largely achieved that. We were going to destroy a significant percentage of their missile launchers. We are well on our way to achieving that. And we were going to wipe out their defense industrial base, meaning the factories that make the drones and the missiles. We are on our way to doing that.”

According to Rubio, these military goals serve a strategic purpose in blocking Iran’s path to nuclear weapons development. “Those were our four objectives because those were the four things they were going to hide behind to then develop a nuclear weapon and threaten the world if they tried to do anything about it,” he explained during the interview.

The Secretary of State expressed confidence in the mission’s progress, stating the U.S. is “on or ahead of schedule on each of those four objectives” and noted, “we can see the finish line.”

Rubio highlighted Iran’s uranium enrichment activities as a major security threat, pointing to their stockpile of 60% enriched uranium. “There is no use for 60% enriched uranium … The only reason to have it is to be able to enrich it to 90% and put it in a bomb,” he stated.

The Secretary also warned about Iran’s developing missile technology and its potential threat to American territory. “They were moving towards eventually having a missile that could reach the continental United States,” Rubio said.

While maintaining military pressure, Rubio indicated the Trump administration would consider diplomatic solutions under certain conditions. “We’re always going to be open for that … but we’re not going to allow fake negotiations to be used as a delay tactic,” he explained.

Beyond Iran, Rubio addressed concerns about NATO’s effectiveness, suggesting a review of the alliance may be necessary. “We are going to have to re-examine whether or not this alliance … is still serving that purpose, or is it now become a one-way street,” he said, referencing disagreements over military base access and flight permissions.

Regarding maritime security, Rubio warned that Iranian interference with commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz would constitute a violation of international law. “Anything Iran does to impede commercial traffic is illegal,” he declared.

The Secretary also touched on developments in Latin America, describing Venezuela as entering a “recovery phase” following recent stabilization measures. He reported that oil revenues are now flowing through American-controlled accounts for public benefit, hundreds of political prisoners have been freed, and a detention facility has been shuttered.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court convened at 10 a.m. today to consider whether President Donald Trump’s executive directive eliminating birthright citizenship violates the Constitution.

Trump issued the controversial directive on January 20, 2025, his first day back in office, targeting children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country without legal status or on temporary visas. The measure represents a cornerstone of his administration’s sweeping immigration enforcement agenda.

Making history, Trump became the first sitting president ever to observe oral arguments at the Supreme Court. His attendance breaks with longstanding tradition, as presidents typically avoid the courtroom to preserve the separation of powers and prevent any appearance of attempting to influence the independent judiciary.

Federal courts nationwide have unanimously blocked the order from being implemented, declaring it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s final decision, anticipated by early summer, will definitively settle the matter.

UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler told The Associated Press that Trump’s decision to attend demonstrates the case’s critical importance to his presidency. However, Winkler noted that the president’s presence “is unlikely to sway the justices,” explaining that Supreme Court justices “pride themselves in their independence, even if some agree with much of Trump’s agenda.”

Winkler added that “Trump’s presence will make the atmosphere a little bit more circus-like” for the justices during proceedings.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who previously clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, will present the administration’s case in his ninth Supreme Court appearance. His most notable victory came in securing the presidential immunity ruling that protected Trump from prosecution related to January 6th election challenges.

Representing the opposition, ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang, daughter of Chinese immigrants, will make her second Supreme Court argument. During Trump’s previous presidency, she lost a 5-4 immigration case before the conservative-majority court.

The proceedings included ceremonial elements, with Trump and First Lady Melania Trump participating in traditional rituals for new justices. This ceremony had been postponed for Justice Amy Coney Barrett due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Justice Clarence Thomas, at 77 the court’s senior member, continues to ask initial questions before general questioning begins, a pandemic-era accommodation that has continued. The court routinely extends beyond scheduled time limits since resuming in-person sessions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, Gailliard believes more action is necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He indicated the coverage would continue indefinitely.

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

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

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

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

Labor unions are amplifying the pressure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Inaction is unacceptable,” he added.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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