Category: Politics

Secret Service agents fatally shot an intruder who breached the security perimeter at President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, early Sunday morning.

The incident unfolded at 1:30 a.m. when the suspect, described as a man in his early twenties from North Carolina, drove through the resort’s north gate while another vehicle was leaving the property. Both President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump were at the White House when the breach occurred.

According to Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi, the intruder was carrying a shotgun and a gas can when he entered the restricted area. Palm Beach County Sheriff Rick Bradshaw explained during a news conference that two Secret Service agents and a deputy sheriff confronted the armed individual.

“He was ordered to drop those two pieces of equipment that he had with them. At which time he put down the gas can, raised the shotgun to a shooting position,” Bradshaw stated. The law enforcement officers then “fired their weapons to neutralize the threat.”

Sheriff Bradshaw confirmed that the suspect was not previously known to law enforcement authorities. The man’s family had reported him missing several days before the incident, and investigators believe he traveled south from North Carolina, acquiring the shotgun during his journey. Officials recovered the weapon’s packaging from his vehicle.

Federal investigators are requesting residents living near the resort to review their security footage for any material that might assist in the investigation. Authorities are currently developing a psychological profile of the suspect while working to determine his motives.

This security breach represents the latest in a series of threats against the former president. Trump survived an assassination attempt at a Pennsylvania campaign rally on July 13, 2024, where he sustained injuries. Just two months later, on September 15, 2024, another armed individual was apprehended after positioning himself near Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course while the president was playing. That suspect received a life sentence earlier this month.

The incident occurs amid a concerning pattern of political violence across the nation. Recent attacks have included the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the killing of Minnesota’s Democratic state House leader and her spouse, shootings targeting other lawmakers and their families, and an arson attack at Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s official residence.

A separate security incident took place five days prior when U.S. Capitol Police arrested a Georgia man carrying a shotgun as he ran toward the Capitol’s west entrance.

WASHINGTON – America’s leading trade official reports that international partners are standing by their tariff agreements with the United States, even after the Supreme Court eliminated numerous trade policies implemented during President Donald Trump’s administration.

During an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer described ongoing discussions with nations that have established tariff agreements with America. According to Greer, none of these countries have suggested they plan to abandon their current arrangements following Friday’s high court ruling that overturned a significant portion of Trump’s tariff policies.

Greer revealed he has already conducted talks with European Union trade officials and plans additional conversations with representatives from other nations in the coming days.

“I haven’t heard anyone yet come to me and say the deal is off,” Greer stated during the television interview.

Federal agents fatally shot an armed intruder who breached security at President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, early Sunday morning, according to the U.S. Secret Service.

The president was not at his Florida property during the security breach, remaining at the White House with First Lady Melania Trump throughout the weekend.

Authorities have not disclosed the identity of the deceased individual. Secret Service officials reported that the man “was observed by the north gate of the Mar-a-Lago property carrying what appeared to be a shotgun and a fuel can” during the 1:30 a.m. incident on Sunday.

During a news briefing, Palm Beach County Sheriff Rick Bradshaw explained that law enforcement officers – two Secret Service agents and one sheriff’s deputy – confronted the intruder.

“He was ordered to drop those two pieces of equipment that he had with them. At which time he put down the gas can, raised the shotgun to a shooting position,” Bradshaw stated. The officers “fired their weapons to neutralize the threat.”

Federal investigators are requesting assistance from Mar-a-Lago area residents, asking them to review their security camera footage for any evidence that might aid the investigation.

Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi revealed that the deceased individual was in his early twenties and originally from North Carolina. His family had filed a missing person report several days prior to the incident. Authorities believe he traveled south from North Carolina, acquiring the shotgun during his journey, with investigators recovering the weapon’s packaging from his vehicle.

According to Guglielmi, the suspect gained access by driving through Mar-a-Lago’s north entrance as another car was departing the property.

Law enforcement officials are currently developing a psychological assessment of the individual, while his motivations remain unclear. When questioned about whether the man had previous encounters with police, Bradshaw responded “not right now.”

This security breach occurs amid a troubling pattern of political violence across the nation in recent years. The previous year witnessed several high-profile attacks, including the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the murder of Minnesota’s Democratic House leader and her spouse, an attack on another legislator and his wife, and an arson incident at Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s official residence.

Saturday’s intrusion happened just miles from Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course, where Ryan Routh attempted to assassinate the former president during a golf outing in the 2024 election cycle. A Secret Service agent discovered Routh positioning a rifle through nearby vegetation before Trump entered the area. When Routh aimed his weapon at the agent, the officer returned fire, forcing Routh to abandon his rifle.

Routh received a guilty verdict last year and was sentenced to life imprisonment this month.

Trump also survived another assassination attempt during a 2024 campaign event in Butler, Pennsylvania. That attacker discharged eight rounds before a Secret Service sniper eliminated the threat.

The White House has not yet provided a statement regarding Sunday’s incident.

WASHINGTON — Federal authorities confirmed Sunday that an armed individual was fatally shot by law enforcement after breaching the protected boundaries of Mar-a-Lago, President Donald Trump’s Florida resort located in Palm Beach.

The president was not present at the property during the security breach, remaining instead at the White House. First lady Melania Trump was also with the president in Washington on Saturday evening.

Authorities have not yet disclosed the identity of the deceased individual. The Secret Service reported that the person was “observed by the north gate of the Mar-a-Lago property carrying what appeared to be a shotgun and a fuel can.”

Both Secret Service personnel and a deputy from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office fired the fatal shots, according to the federal agency.

This incident adds to a series of security concerns involving Trump. The former president sustained injuries during an attempted assassination at a Pennsylvania campaign event in Butler on July 13, 2024.

Another security incident occurred on September 15, 2024, when authorities apprehended an individual armed with a rifle who had positioned himself near Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course while the president was playing. That suspect received a life sentence earlier this month.

The White House has not yet provided a statement regarding Sunday’s incident.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. – Federal agents fatally shot an intruder who attempted to breach the secured grounds of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate on Sunday, according to the U.S. Secret Service.

The incident involved a man in his twenties who tried to gain unauthorized access to the protected area surrounding the Florida resort, officials confirmed. Secret Service personnel responded with deadly force during the security breach.

The former president was not at the West Palm Beach property during the incident, as he was located in the nation’s capital at the time of the attempted intrusion.

TOPEKA, Kan. — A groundbreaking law taking effect Thursday will make Kansas the first state in the nation to actively reverse gender identity changes on official government documents, affecting approximately 1,700 driver’s licenses and nearly 1,800 birth certificates held by transgender residents.

The legislation became law after Republican legislators used their supermajority to override a veto from Democratic Governor Laura Kelly last week. This action represents the most aggressive approach yet among GOP-led efforts nationwide to restrict transgender rights through official documentation policies.

While states including Florida, Tennessee, and Texas currently prohibit driver’s licenses from reflecting transgender individuals’ gender identities, and at least eight other states prevent changes to birth certificates, Kansas stands alone in mandating the reversal of modifications already completed for transgender residents.

“It tells me that Kansas Republicans are interested in being on the vanguard of the culture war and in a race to the bottom,” stated Democratic state Representative Abi Boatman, a transgender Air Force veteran who was appointed in January to represent a Wichita district.

The measure received overwhelming Republican backing and continues a pattern of annual legislative efforts to limit transgender rights in statehouses nationwide, supported by policies and messaging from President Donald Trump’s administration.

Republican officials, including Trump, characterize scientific findings about gender fluidity as extremist “gender ideology.” Kansas GOP legislators consistently refer to transgender girls and women using male pronouns while claiming their actions protect women.

Kansas Senate Majority Leader Chase Blasi echoed his Republican colleagues, arguing that Trump’s electoral victory and other 2024 GOP wins demonstrate public support for “returning to common sense” regarding gender issues.

“When I go home, people believe there are just two sexes, male and female,” Blasi explained. “It’s basic biology I learned in high school.”

Despite Governor Kelly’s support for transgender rights, Republican lawmakers have successfully overturned her vetoes in three of the last four years. Kansas has already prohibited gender-affirming medical care for minors and excluded transgender women and girls from participating on female athletic teams from elementary school through college.

The state also restricts transgender individuals from using public restrooms, locker rooms, and other single-gender facilities that align with their gender identity, though enforcement mechanisms were strengthened only with this year’s legislation.

Transgender advocates emphasize that carrying identification documents that don’t match their gender identity subjects them to invasive questioning, harassment, and potential violence when presenting IDs to law enforcement, businesses, and other entities.

In 2023, Republicans blocked gender identity changes on Kansas birth certificates and driver’s licenses through legislation that ended official state recognition of transgender residents’ gender identities. While that law didn’t explicitly reference either document, it legally established male and female classifications based on an individual’s “biological reproductive system” at birth.

A legal challenge resulted in state court rulings that allowed driver’s license modifications to resume last year.

According to bill-tracking software Plural, lawmakers in at least seven additional states are reviewing similar proposals to prevent transgender individuals from altering one or both types of documents. However, none of these measures would undo previously approved changes.

The decision by Kansas legislators to take this additional step sends a clear signal “that trans people aren’t welcome,” according to Anthony Alvarez, a transgender University of Kansas student who advocates for LGBTQ rights.

State officials plan to mail notices to transgender residents informing them their driver’s licenses are invalid and directing them to visit local licensing offices for replacement documents, explained Zachary Denney, a spokesperson for the issuing agency.

Since the Legislature didn’t allocate funding for implementation costs, affected individuals must pay the $26 fee for a standard license replacement.

Alvarez has already obtained four different IDs over four years due to name changes, gender marker updates, and reaching age 21. Despite his challenges, he had planned to remain in his home state of Kansas after completing his history degree this spring.

However, he noted, “They’re just making it harder and harder for me to live in the state that I love.”

The nation’s highest court is diving into complex legal disputes stemming from decades-old tensions between the United States and Cuba, as justices examine how far a federal law should go in helping Americans recover property taken by the Cuban government.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two significant cases involving the Helms-Burton Act, legislation passed in 1996. One case features oil giant ExxonMobil, while the other involves major cruise companies including Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise Line and MSC Cruises.

The heart of these disputes centers on Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, which permits Americans to file lawsuits in federal court against companies that use or benefit from property seized by Cuba’s government following Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution.

Both cases ask fundamental questions about how Congress intended this legal tool to work. The Supreme Court could potentially remove obstacles that have made it difficult for property owners to pursue these claims successfully.

This marks the first time the high court has examined Title III, which includes a provision allowing U.S. presidents to halt its enforcement if they determine suspension serves “the national interests of the United States.”

For years, Title III remained inactive because presidents chose to suspend it. However, former President Donald Trump, who adopted an aggressive stance toward Cuba, ended that suspension during his presidency, triggering approximately 40 lawsuits filed between 2019 and 2020 that are now working through the court system.

The Trump administration labeled Cuba as “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to American national security, blocking Venezuelan oil shipments to the island and threatening tariffs on nations providing Cuba with fuel.

The financial stakes are enormous. After Castro’s revolution, Cuba’s communist leadership took control of American-owned assets now valued in the billions, including manufacturing facilities, sugar processing plants, oil refineries and electrical generation stations.

The Helms-Burton Act made official the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba that had existed through presidential orders since the Kennedy administration in the 1960s.

Title III established a legal pathway for Americans whose property was confiscated to seek enhanced financial damages in federal courts from entities that knowingly utilize the seized property, including both Cuban government-owned companies and international corporations.

Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all kept Title III suspended to prevent diplomatic tensions with allies such as Canada and Spain, whose businesses had invested in Cuba. Trump ended the suspension in 2019, with the State Department stating the action would “increase pressure on the Cuban government” and “punish those who profit from Americans’ rightful property.”

In the ExxonMobil case, the company is pursuing more than $1 billion in damages from CIMEX, a Cuban state-controlled enterprise, for petroleum and natural gas facilities taken in 1960. The second case involves a smaller firm that constructed dock facilities in Havana’s harbor before the revolution, now seeking compensation from four cruise companies whose vessels utilized the terminal.

ExxonMobil filed its lawsuit in Washington during 2019, asking the justices to overturn a 2024 lower court ruling that determined Cuban state-owned businesses facing Helms-Burton Act claims can invoke foreign sovereign immunity as a defense. This legal principle typically protects foreign governments and their agencies from lawsuits in American courts.

The lower court’s ruling “creates another obstacle in a series of barriers preventing recovery for those harmed by the Castro government’s unlawful seizures,” ExxonMobil’s attorneys stated in a 2024 court document.

CIMEX has countered in legal filings that the 2024 ruling should stand because it “honors and protects congressional decision-making in this delicate matter.”

Legal professionals noted that the 2024 ruling and similar decisions interpreting Helms-Burton have made pursuing compensation from Cuban entities expensive and lengthy for American companies.

“The time commitment and financial resources needed have become overwhelming for many claimants,” explained Washington attorney Jared Butcher, who handles commercial litigation cases.

The second case scheduled for Monday’s arguments doesn’t involve sovereign immunity since the cruise line defendants are privately-owned rather than state-controlled companies. The central question in this dispute is whether a Helms-Burton Act plaintiff must prove they would maintain current property rights to the assets in question if nationalization had never occurred.

Havana Docks Corporation, an American company that constructed harbor facilities in Havana before the revolution, filed suit against the cruise lines in Florida federal court during 2019. Castro eliminated the company’s legal claim to the docks soon after assuming power.

The four cruise operators utilized the docks between 2016 and 2019, following Obama’s relaxation of Cuba travel restrictions. In shared court documents, the companies argued it makes no sense that they “should pay hundreds of millions of dollars for following the executive branch’s guidance in resuming Cuba travel.”

A federal judge determined the cruise companies were liable for a total of $440 million, ruling they had engaged in trafficking confiscated property. However, an appeals court overturned those judgments last year, demonstrating the challenges Helms-Burton Act plaintiffs encounter.

“Claimants are struggling to obtain recovery under the Helms-Burton Act for numerous reasons, and it’s likely more challenging to recover than Congress expected when passing the legislation in 1996,” observed Vanderbilt Law School professor Ingrid Brunk. “However, that doesn’t mean every plaintiff deserves to prevail.”

A recent Supreme Court ruling has diminished President Donald Trump’s capacity to impose trade tariffs instantly, though it hasn’t eliminated the unpredictability facing international trading partners and businesses worldwide.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision invalidated many of Trump’s existing tariffs, but the president reacted swiftly on Friday by implementing a new 10% levy on all imports and launching fresh trade investigations that could result in additional fees within months. He also declared that trade agreements negotiated with nearly 20 nations should stay in place.

Within a day, Trump escalated the new tariff rate to 15% – reaching the highest level permitted by law.

According to Wendy Cutler, a former trade official and senior vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, Trump’s quick policy shifts demonstrate his strategy to maintain pressure on international partners.

“The uncertainty, in his view, just gives him enormous additional leverage beyond the actual tariffs. Because people are worried about what he’ll do,” Cutler explained.

However, trade specialists acknowledge that Trump’s options have become more restricted. The replacement 10% tariff expires after 150 days, and future tariffs implemented through alternative legal pathways will require more time, eliminating the president’s previous ability to impose duties instantly for any reason after the Court blocked his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

“He’s lost his favorite tool,” Cutler noted. “Particularly for foreign policy matters and things that irk him on other countries that have nothing to do with trade, he’s lost the ability to offer a credible threat.”

William Reinsch, a former government official now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Court’s decisive ruling reduced Trump’s threatening capabilities.

“It takes away his ability to wave the big stick around,” Reinsch commented, though he noted the economic effects will be minimal since the 10% tariff and upcoming duties will likely replace the now-illegal levies.

Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the decision and administration response created numerous unanswered questions, including how importers might receive refunds for illegally collected duties and what additional tariffs might be coming.

“Perhaps the most consequential impact of the Supreme Court’s decision is that it should curtail the threat or use of tariffs as the president’s preferred form of leverage or punishment outside the trade domain,” said Froman, who served as President Barack Obama’s top trade negotiator from 2013 to 2017.

This change could benefit countries that have experienced Trump’s unpredictable behavior and frequent tariff threats used to punish them over non-trade issues, extract agreements, and secure foreign investments.

Trump had previously used IEEPA to impose tariffs over various non-trade concerns, creating anxiety among nations and businesses globally. He threatened tariffs against European nations over their opposition to his Greenland claims, against Canada for permitting Chinese electric vehicle imports, and against Brazil regarding its treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro.

Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council, warned it was premature to assess the ruling’s full impact on Trump’s influence, given uncertainty about future tariffs and the president’s willingness to employ various tools.

“It’s a significant blow to his international economic trade agenda. It’s not a crippling one, necessarily, because of the other authorities, but we have to see how they play out in practice,” Lipsky said.

Questions remain about nearly 20 framework agreements or formal trade deals the Trump administration secured recently based on IEEPA tariff threats.

Trump, Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent maintained Friday that these agreements should continue, even with rates exceeding the temporary universal tax.

Experts doubt countries will attempt to cancel or renegotiate deals due to concerns about provoking Trump’s anger.

Miriam Sapiro, a former trade official and Columbia University professor, said while Trump may have lost his “trade bazooka,” existing deals likely won’t collapse. The ruling could provide countries more negotiating power in future discussions with the Trump administration, she suggested.

“There’ll still be interest in doing deals because of the uncertainty and the desire to keep the U.S. as a strong ally and strong partner,” Sapiro said. “But countries do have a bit more bargaining power than they might have felt they had previously.”

From Trump’s viewpoint, using IEEPA was a calculated risk that helped secure some trade agreements quickly, though details need refinement and enforcement may prove challenging, Sapiro noted.

Greer told Fox News’ “Special Report” that IEEPA was suitable given Trump’s need for quick, flexible action and helped open market access for American companies. “We don’t regret it,” he said. “We’ll just use a different tool.”

International responses have been cautious as countries evaluate the Supreme Court decision. South Korea announced it would review the ruling and U.S. response while continuing “amicable” discussions about implementing a tariff agreement completed in November with $350 billion in investment commitments.

Tom Ramage, an economic policy analyst at the Korea Economic Institute of America, said the Trump administration’s continued access to other tariff mechanisms would likely convince South Korea and its businesses to honor their commitments.

“Anything less could increase the likelihood that the president will impose further retaliation, especially if the administration seeks to make an example of countries that want to back out of negotiated deals,” Ramage wrote on KEI’s website.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A California state legislator positioned as the leading candidate to take over Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district has already gained national attention for championing controversial measures including restrictions on face coverings for federal officers and legislation protecting transgender minors.

Scott Wiener is anticipated to secure the California Democratic Party’s backing this Sunday, providing additional momentum for his campaign in a crowded primary race. Upon reaching Washington, he may quickly emerge as a new face representing San Francisco’s political landscape, criticized by conservative voices as embodying far-left ideology while sometimes finding himself at odds with progressive allies.

Through 15 years serving in local and state government, Wiener has gained experience managing this delicate political balance.

“Sen. Wiener only does the tough bills,” said Chris Micheli, a veteran Sacramento lobbyist. “He never shies away from a significant political battle.”

The complexities of contemporary Democratic politics became evident for Wiener this January when he modified his position regarding the Gaza conflict. After initially refusing to join progressive rivals in labeling Israel’s military actions as genocide, he later adopted that terminology. This reversal upset several Jewish organizations and prompted Wiener to resign from his co-leadership role in the state Legislative Jewish Caucus.

“For a period of time I chose not to use the word ‘genocide’ because it is so sensitive within the Jewish community,” Wiener explained during an Associated Press interview. “But ultimately I decided I had been effectively saying ‘genocide’ for quite some time.”

Despite his typically composed manner, Wiener frequently finds himself at the heart of California’s most contentious debates, spanning topics from housing development to substance abuse policy. Both supporters and detractors characterize him as someone who fights tenaciously for his legislative priorities.

“If you’re willing to risk people being mad at you, you can get things done and make people’s lives better,” Wiener stated.

Among his legislative achievements are measures mandating major corporations report their direct and indirect carbon emissions and accelerating apartment development near mass transit hubs.

However, his track record includes setbacks as well.

Wiener crafted groundbreaking legislation prohibiting local and federal law enforcement from using face masks following widespread immigration enforcement operations in Southern California last summer. A court prevented the law from being implemented this month — an unusual defeat in the state’s legal confrontations with the Trump administration that prompted criticism of Wiener from Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration.

He also encountered failure with high-profile proposals to legalize psychedelic mushrooms and establish liability for oil and gas corporations regarding climate-related natural disaster damages.

Opposition to his work spans party lines.

Republican lawmakers have condemned numerous policies he’s advanced to protect LGBTQ+ individuals, with some using derogatory language against Wiener, who is openly gay.

Aaron Peskin, a former San Francisco supervisor and vocal progressive, argued that legislation authored by Wiener unintentionally hampered local housing and affordability initiatives.

“It was screwing my government’s ability to deliver goods and services to the people that we represent,” Peskin said.

While Wiener maintains support for Israel’s defensive rights, he expressed growing alarm at the magnitude of its Gaza offensive and restrictions on humanitarian assistance. Gaza’s Health Ministry reports over 70,000 Palestinian deaths since fighting resumed in late 2023. Though he had sharply condemned Israel’s military conduct, he previously avoided the term “genocide.”

During a January candidate debate, he declined to give a direct response when Democratic contenders were questioned about whether Israel was perpetrating genocide, frustrating pro-Palestinian activists. His competitors, San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan and former technology executive Saikat Chakrabarti, answered affirmatively.

Several days afterward, he published a video statement declaring Israel had committed genocide, sparking criticism from Jewish and pro-Israel organizations who questioned his “moral clarity.”

This episode illustrates the challenging political landscape many Democrats must traverse as polling indicates shifting American attitudes toward Israel. Public support for Israel among Americans reached historic lows in 2025, especially among Democratic and independent voters, while Palestinian sympathy has increased.

“Do I think he wins or loses based on this issue? Not necessarily, but it could become a problem for him,” observed Jim Ross, a San Francisco Bay Area political strategist, noting some voters might worry about his consistency on issues they value.

Among Congress members, only two Jewish representatives — Independent Senator Bernie Sanders and Democratic Representative Becca Balint, both from Vermont — have publicly characterized Israel’s actions as genocide. The Jewish Democratic Council of America reports just a small fraction of congressional Democrats have employed this language.

Wiener was raised in New Jersey within a Conservative Jewish household, a moderately traditional branch of Judaism, and his social circle through high school consisted entirely of synagogue friends, he recalled. At Duke University, he joined a Jewish fraternity and was pleasantly surprised by his fraternity brothers’ acceptance when he disclosed his sexual orientation.

“A lot of Jews just intuitively understand what it means to be part of a marginalized community,” he reflected.

Former House Speaker Pelosi has remained neutral in the congressional race.

Should he win election, Wiener pledged to address San Francisco’s famously expensive cost of living. His challengers campaign on similar commitments while arguing he has inadequately emphasized affordable housing solutions.

Chan and Chakrabarti, a former staff member to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, present themselves as newer candidates better equipped to deliver transformative change following Pelosi’s tenure. They characterize Wiener as a centrist with establishment connections. Chan has won election twice from voters in the city’s Richmond District, while Chakrabarti has never appeared on a ballot.

Political consultant Ross noted the impossibility of matching anyone against Pelosi given her extraordinary political influence. Yet like her, Wiener has demonstrated strong networking abilities, fundraising capacity, and success passing ambitious legislation.

“They’re both about the politics of what they can get done,” Ross concluded.

A young woman seeking asylum in the United States found herself back in Morocco and living in fear, despite receiving legal protection from deportation by a federal immigration judge.

Farah, a 21-year-old who fled Morocco due to violence from her family over her sexual orientation, experienced what immigration attorneys call a legal workaround that bypassed court-ordered protections. Homosexuality remains criminalized in Morocco, carrying potential prison sentences of up to three years.

“It is hard to live and work with the fear of being tracked once again by my family,” Farah explained to reporters, requesting only her first name be used due to safety concerns. “But there is nothing I can do. I have to work.”

Her ordeal began in Morocco, where she faced brutal treatment from both her own family and her partner’s relatives after their relationship was discovered. Following beatings and death threats, she escaped the country with her partner, obtaining Brazilian visas before making the dangerous journey through six nations to reach the U.S. border.

“You get put in situations that are truly horrible,” she remembered. “When we arrived (at the U.S. border), it felt like it was worth the trouble and that we got to our goal.”

After arriving in early 2025, Farah spent nearly a year in immigration detention facilities in Arizona and Louisiana. She described harsh conditions, including inadequate heating and poor medical treatment.

“It was very cold,” she recalled about the detention experience. “And we only had very thin blankets.”

While her asylum request was ultimately rejected, Farah received a crucial victory in August when a federal immigration judge issued a protection order specifically barring her deportation to Morocco, determining such action would put her life at risk. Her partner faced a different outcome, being denied both asylum and protection before deportation.

Just three days before a scheduled hearing regarding her potential release, immigration officials took Farah into custody and transported her to Cameroon, a nation she had never visited and where homosexuality is also illegal. She was placed in a detention facility in the capital city of Yaounde.

“They asked me if I wanted to stay in Cameroon, and I told them that I can’t stay in Cameroon and risk my life in a place where I would still be endangered,” she explained. Authorities subsequently sent her to Morocco.

Immigration attorney Alma David, who works with the U.S.-based Novo Legal Group and helped verify Farah’s situation, described the practice as exploiting a legal gap in the system.

“By deporting them to Cameroon, and giving them no opportunity to contest being sent to a country whose government hoped to quietly send them back to the very countries where they face grave danger, the U.S. not only violated their due process rights but our own immigration laws, our obligations under international treaties and even DHS’ own procedures,” David stated.

According to attorney Joseph Awah Fru, who represents deportees in Cameroon, all nine individuals on the first deportation flight in January had received judicial protection orders. The facility currently houses 15 deportees from various African nations, none of whom are Cameroonian citizens.

A second flight arrived Monday carrying eight additional people, including two women from Ghana and Congo who claim they also possessed protection orders.

The Department of Homeland Security defended the deportation strategy, stating it applies existing law regardless of judicial findings about individuals’ right to remain in the country. Officials assert that third-country agreements maintain constitutional due process requirements.

“We are applying the law as written. If a judge finds an illegal alien has no right to be in this country, we are going to remove them. Period,” the department declared.

The State Department declined to discuss details of diplomatic communications with other governments regarding the deportation arrangements.

David criticized the limited options presented to deportees, arguing that asylum claims weren’t clearly explained as alternatives to returning home.

“They were given two impossible choices,” David said. “This was before the lawyer had access to them. They’d been alone there in that facility without any help from anybody or any indication that there was gonna be an option other than going back to their home countries.”

The Trump administration has established third-country deportation agreements with at least seven African nations, including South Sudan, Rwanda, Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana and Equatorial Guinea. Some countries have received millions in compensation, though details of the Cameroon agreement remain undisclosed.

Recent analysis by Democratic Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff indicates the administration has spent at least $40 million deporting approximately 300 migrants to countries other than their homelands. Internal documents suggest 47 additional third-country agreements are under negotiation.

The International Organization for Migration, a United Nations-affiliated group, acknowledged awareness of the deportations and described its role as providing information to help people make informed decisions about returning to their origin countries voluntarily.

Now back in Morocco, Farah expressed frustration with how U.S. officials characterize people in her situation as security threats.

“The USA is built on immigration and by immigrant labor, so we’re clearly not all threats,” she said. “What was done to me was unfair. A normal deportation would have been fair, but to go through so much and lose so much, only to be deported in such a way, is cruel.”

WASHINGTON — Federal officials have put a stop to expedited airport security programs amid an ongoing partial government shutdown that began last week.

The Department of Homeland Security announced it will no longer operate TSA PreCheck and Global Entry services, which typically allow pre-approved travelers to move through airport checkpoints more quickly. The halt in these services is expected to create longer wait times and additional frustration for air travelers.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem released a statement acknowledging that government shutdowns create significant impacts in the real world. Noem explained that both TSA and Customs and Border Protection agencies are focusing their limited resources on serving all travelers rather than providing expedited services and special assistance.

The government funding lapse started on February 14th when congressional Democrats and the White House failed to agree on spending legislation for the Department of Homeland Security. The standoff centers on Democratic lawmakers’ demands for modifications to immigration enforcement policies that form a key part of President Donald Trump’s deportation efforts.

House Democrats serving on the Homeland Security Committee have voiced strong opposition to the airport security decision. Through social media posts, they accused the current administration of deliberately undermining programs that enhance both travel efficiency and security, claiming officials are intentionally disrupting passenger travel experiences.

The Department of Homeland Security plans to temporarily halt its TSA PreCheck and Global Entry traveler programs as the agency continues to face a shutdown, according to a Saturday report from the Washington Post.

A DHS spokesperson confirmed to the newspaper that the department is implementing the suspension as part of several emergency actions designed to reallocate personnel resources. This decision comes over a week following Congressional failure to approve additional funding for the agency.

The halt of these popular expedited screening programs represents one of multiple urgent steps the department says it must take to manage staffing during the ongoing budget crisis.

Reuters noted they were unable to independently confirm the Washington Post’s reporting at the time of publication.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump revealed Saturday that he is collaborating with Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry on plans to deploy a hospital vessel to Greenland, the Danish territory Trump has expressed interest in purchasing.

The president made the announcement on social media just before welcoming Republican governors to a White House dinner, where he was seated alongside Landry.

“Working with the fantastic Governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, we are going to send a great hospital boat to Greenland to take care of the many people who are sick, and not being taken care of there. It’s on the way!!!” Trump said.

Officials from both the White House and Governor Landry’s office have not responded to inquiries regarding the social media post, including whether Denmark or Greenland requested the vessel or what specific medical needs require attention. The Department of War also declined immediate comment.

The announcement follows recent diplomatic activity, as Danish King Frederik made his second trip to Greenland within a year last week, signaling solidarity with the territory amid Trump’s acquisition efforts.

Representatives from Greenland, Denmark, and the United States conducted discussions late last month aimed at easing tensions that have developed within the NATO defense partnership over recent months.

Trump’s social media statement came just hours after Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command reported evacuating a crew member requiring emergency medical care from an American submarine positioned seven nautical miles from Nuuk, Greenland’s capital city.

The connection between Governor Landry and this medical mission remains unclear, as does any potential link between the evacuation incident and Trump’s announcement.

The U.S. Navy operates two hospital ships, the Mercy and the Comfort, though neither vessel is currently based in Louisiana waters.

WASHINGTON — A recent Supreme Court decision overturning President Donald Trump’s extensive tariff program has injected fresh complexity into US-China trade dynamics, as both nations work to prevent a full-scale economic conflict that could destabilize global markets while positioning themselves advantageously for upcoming negotiations.

While Friday’s judicial decision appears to give China leverage, experts believe Beijing will exercise restraint in capitalizing on this development, recognizing Trump retains alternative methods for imposing trade penalties. Both nations seek to preserve their delicate trade agreement and establish stability before Trump’s scheduled visit to Beijing.

“It will give China a moral boost in their negotiations with Trump’s team ahead of the summit, but they are prepared for the scenario that nothing actually changes in reality,” said Sun Yun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center, a Washington-based think tank.

Responding angrily to the setback, Trump announced plans for a temporary 10% worldwide tariff that would increase to 15%, while exploring other avenues for import taxes. He justified these measures by citing China’s challenge to American economic, technological and military supremacy.

“China had hundreds of billions of dollars in surpluses with the United States. They rebuilt China. They rebuilt the army. We built China’s army by allowing that to happen,” Trump told reporters Friday. “I have a great relationship with President Xi, but he respects our country now.”

The White House has announced Trump’s China visit will occur March 31 through April 2 for meetings with President Xi Jinping.

Xi will likely avoid aggressively leveraging the Supreme Court decision during Trump’s visit, instead focusing on building personal connections with the American president, according to Ali Wyne, a senior research and advocacy adviser on US-China policy at the International Crisis Group.

The stronger Xi’s relationship with Trump becomes, “the more likely it is that the fragile trade truce between the United States and China will take hold in earnest and that Trump will be amenable to security concessions that give China greater freedom of maneuver in Asia,” Wyne said.

When asked about the court ruling’s impact, Chinese Embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu simply stated that tariffs and trade conflicts benefit neither nation. He urged Beijing and Washington to collaborate in “provide greater certainty and stability for China-U.S. economic and trade cooperation and the global economy.”

The judicial ruling has also generated uncertainty among other American trading partners across Asia and beyond, particularly those who negotiated agreements to address initial disruptions from Trump’s tariff policies.

“I would expect most Asian partners to proceed cautiously, with existing agreements largely holding as both sides work through the implications in the coming weeks,” said Dan Kritenbrink, a partner at The Asia Group who served as assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs in the Biden administration.

Kritenbrink noted he’ll monitor effects on Japan before Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s March Washington visit. Japan, a key US ally, has experienced worsening relations with Beijing recently.

Following Trump’s return to office last year, he utilized emergency powers legislation to implement 20% tariffs on Chinese products, citing Beijing’s inadequate efforts to control chemical exports used in fentanyl production.

Trump subsequently used identical emergency authority for broad reciprocal tariffs against numerous nations, including 34% on China. Beijing responded in kind, causing tariffs to temporarily reach triple-digit levels before both sides de-escalated.

Following multiple negotiation rounds and a Trump-Xi summit in South Korea last October, both countries established a one-year truce with 10% baseline tariffs. Trump reduced the fentanyl-related tariff to 10%, while Beijing renewed cooperation in limiting exports of substances used for opioid manufacturing.

Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, suggested the Trump administration might quickly implement an alternative strategy. The Office of the US Trade Representative maintains an ongoing investigation into China’s adherence to previous trade agreements, potentially serving as the administration’s contingency plan, she explained. Trade law permits tariff implementation if China fails to meet agreement obligations.

Rep. Ro Khanna, the leading Democrat on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, called for the administration to develop a stronger approach that “holds China accountable for its unfair trade practices and leverages the collective power of our allies and partners.”

Gabriel Wildau, a managing director specializing in China political risk analysis at consultancy Teneo, observed that Trump has demonstrated readiness to employ alternative legal mechanisms for Chinese tariffs, as during his previous presidency. Beijing likely expects these tariffs could be sustained or recreated “with only modest difficulty.”

“But Beijing also holds out hope that they can persuade Trump to lower this tariff in exchange for purchase guarantees or other concessions,” Wildau said.

Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock recently shared his perspectives on civil rights leader Jesse Jackson’s lasting impact on American society and democratic values.

The senator reflected on Jackson’s decades-long commitment to expanding voting access and promoting equality across the United States. Warnock emphasized how Jackson’s activism has influenced generations of leaders in their pursuit of social justice.

During his remarks, Warnock highlighted Jackson’s role in challenging the nation to fulfill its founding promises of liberty and justice for all citizens. The senator’s comments underscore the ongoing relevance of Jackson’s message in today’s political climate.

Half a decade has passed since rioters breached the United States Capitol building in an attempt to halt the certification process for the presidential election results. NPR journalist Tom Dreisbach has been working to create a comprehensive digital collection that captures the timeline of events leading up to, occurring during, and following that unprecedented assault on the nation’s seat of government.

The initiative represents an effort to maintain historical documentation of these pivotal moments in American democracy for researchers, historians, and citizens in years to come.

Donald Trump announced Saturday that he is boosting worldwide import duties to 15%, just one day after the Supreme Court struck down his initial tariff strategy for exceeding presidential authority.

Writing on his Truth Social account, Trump declared he was “effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been ‘ripping’ the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level.” The president continued: “During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs.”

This action comes after Friday’s 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that determined Trump had overreached his executive powers by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, legislation from 1977 designed for national crises, to establish tariffs across multiple nations. The legal challenge originated from affected businesses and twelve states, primarily led by Democratic leadership.

Following the Court’s decision, Trump quickly signed an executive order Friday establishing a temporary 10% import fee using Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which permits presidential import limitations for a maximum of 150 days. White House officials characterized this as an interim solution while exploring other legal options.

Yale’s Budget Lab reports that the Supreme Court’s decision puts $142 billion in tariff collections at risk, with American businesses now pursuing refunds for previously paid duties. Administration representatives are now working to implement additional trade measures to sustain tariff levels.

Trump has directed new investigations into suspected unfair trading practices using Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. He also indicated plans to implement additional tariffs through Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which permits import restrictions when national security concerns exist.

The president delivered harsh criticism of the Supreme Court after their ruling, describing the decision as “ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American” on social media. Friday’s statement included his assertion that the justices should feel “ashamed” and specifically targeted Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, conservative justices he nominated who ruled against his position, labeling them “an embarrassment to their families.”

The Court’s decision represents a major obstacle to Trump’s economic policy objectives as his administration works to reinstate tariffs using different legal approaches.

NEW YORK – For the first time, JPMorgan Chase has officially confirmed that it terminated bank accounts belonging to Donald Trump and his business enterprises following the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal battle over the practice known as “debanking.”

The banking giant’s admission emerged through court documents filed this week as part of Trump’s $5 billion legal action against JPMorgan and CEO Jamie Dimon. The former president claims his accounts were shuttered for political reasons, causing significant disruption to his business operations.

According to the court filing, Dan Wilkening, JPMorgan’s former chief administrative officer, stated: “In February 2021, JPMorgan informed Plaintiffs that certain accounts maintained with JPMorgan’s CB and PB would be closed.” The abbreviations refer to the bank’s commercial banking and private banking divisions.

This marks the first time JPMorgan has directly acknowledged closing Trump’s accounts, having previously only discussed account closure policies in general terms without confirming specific actions.

Bank representatives did not respond to requests for comment regarding the court filing.

Trump initiated the legal proceedings in Florida state court, where he currently maintains his primary residence. However, JPMorgan is seeking to transfer the case to New York, citing the location of the original accounts and Trump’s former business headquarters.

The lawsuit includes charges of trade libel against the bank and accusations that Dimon violated Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

According to the legal filing, Trump attempted to address the account closures directly with Dimon, who allegedly promised to investigate the situation but never followed through with updates.

Trump’s legal team further alleges that JPMorgan added the former president and his companies to a reputation-based “blacklist” used by multiple financial institutions to prevent future account openings.

JPMorgan has maintained its position that the lawsuit lacks merit.

The practice of debanking – where financial institutions close customer accounts or refuse services like loans – has evolved from a relatively unknown banking procedure to a politically contentious issue. Conservative leaders argue that banks have unfairly targeted them and their associated organizations.

Trump’s attorneys issued a statement saying: “In a devastating concession that proves President Trump’s entire claim, JPMorgan Chase admitted to unlawfully and intentionally de-banking President Trump, his family, and his businesses, causing overwhelming financial harm. President Trump is standing up for all those wrongly debanked by JPMorgan Chase and its cohorts, and will see this case to a just and proper conclusion.”

The debanking controversy first gained national attention when conservative groups accused the Obama administration of pressuring banks to cease services to gun retailers and payday lending companies through “Operation Choke Point.”

Trump and other conservative figures claim banks severed their relationships using “reputational risk” justifications after the January 6th Capitol incident. Since returning to office, Trump’s banking regulators have implemented measures to prevent banks from using reputational risk as grounds for service denial.

This legal action represents Trump’s second major lawsuit against a large financial institution over debanking allegations. The Trump Organization filed a similar case against Capital One in March 2025, which remains pending.

Court documents made public Friday reveal that JPMorgan Chase terminated its banking relationships with Donald Trump and his hospitality company in February 2021, roughly one month following the January 6th Capitol riot.

The disclosure emerged from paperwork filed in connection with a $5 billion legal action Trump has brought against the financial giant and its chief executive, Jamie Dimon.

Following the January 6, 2021 Capitol incident involving Trump supporters, numerous organizations severed their business relationships with the former president. These included two legal firms that had provided representation to Trump and his company, as well as the PGA of America, which relocated the 2022 PGA Championship away from Trump’s Bedminster, New Jersey golf facility.

The February 19, 2021 correspondence from JPMorgan to Trump and the Trump Organization did not specify particular reasons for terminating the accounts. One communication stated that the institution may occasionally “determine that a client’s interests are no longer served by maintaining a relationship with J.P. Morgan Private Bank.”

JPMorgan representatives and their legal counsel at Jones Day did not provide immediate responses to requests for comment. The financial institution has previously characterized Trump’s legal action as without merit.

A representative from Trump’s legal team described the letter revelations as “a devastating concession that proves President Trump’s entire claim.”

The banking institution has “admitted to unlawfully and intentionally de-banking President Trump, his family, and his businesses, causing overwhelming financial harm,” according to the Trump legal team spokesperson.

In his lawsuit, Trump alleges that JPMorgan, America’s largest banking institution, violated its established procedures by targeting him specifically to follow the “political tide.”

Friday’s filing of the account termination correspondence was part of JPMorgan’s effort to transfer Trump’s legal case from Miami federal court to New York.

“The overwhelming connections this dispute has to New York reinforce this result,” the financial institution stated in its court motion.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn emergency trade measures, President Donald Trump announced his administration will implement replacement tariffs using different legal frameworks, beginning with a new 10% baseline tariff set to take effect Tuesday.

The president indicated that his team will utilize multiple statutory authorities to recreate the economic impact of the emergency tariffs that were recently invalidated by the nation’s highest court.

A Department of Homeland Security agent fatally shot an American citizen in Texas last March, according to documents made public this week by a government watchdog organization.

Ruben Ray Martinez, 23, died after being shot by federal immigration agents on South Padre Island, Texas, on March 15, 2025, family attorneys confirmed. The incident took place several months prior to other fatal shootings that occurred during the Trump administration’s expanded immigration enforcement efforts in Minnesota, which resulted in the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

Documents obtained by American Oversight, a nonprofit government accountability group, reveal that DHS agents were helping local police with traffic management following a vehicle crash when the shooting occurred. During the incident, Martinez allegedly struck a federal agent with his vehicle, prompting another agent to fire several shots at Martinez, according to the records.

This appears to mark the first documented case of an American citizen being killed during President Trump’s intensified immigration enforcement campaign. Federal agents conducting immigration operations shot at least five individuals in January alone, including Good and Pretti.

Family attorneys Charles Stam and Alex Stamm maintain that Martinez was attempting to follow orders from local law enforcement when he was shot. The lawyers are demanding a thorough investigation into the incident.

“Ruben’s family has been pursuing transparency and accountability for nearly a year now and will continue to do so for as long as it takes,” the attorneys stated.

The increasing number of fatalities linked to Trump’s expanded immigration enforcement has drawn growing criticism from elected officials and the public. The current administration has allocated a record-breaking $170 billion for immigration agencies through September 2029, dramatically expanding enforcement operations.

After being shot, Martinez was transported to a hospital in Brownsville, Texas, where medical staff pronounced him dead. The agent who was struck by Martinez’s vehicle received treatment for a knee injury and was subsequently discharged, the report indicates.

Chioma Chukwu, who leads American Oversight, expressed concern about the enforcement tactics being employed. “These records paint a deeply troubling picture of the violent methods used by ICE,” Chukwu said. “In just the first months of this administration, ICE’s own data shows a dramatic spike of nearly 400 percent in use-of-force incidents — with people hospitalized, bystanders swept up in operations, and even the death of a U.S. citizen.”

A Department of Homeland Security representative stated that Martinez “intentionally ran over” a Homeland Security Investigations agent, leading another agent to “fire defensive shots.”

The Texas Department of Public Safety Ranger Division is currently investigating the nearly year-old incident, according to DHS officials. Texas DPS representatives have not yet responded to requests for comment about the ongoing investigation.

President Trump announced plans to increase his recently established global tariff rate to 15%, just one day after putting the original 10% rate into effect.

The president signed the initial proclamation on Monday to establish the 10% worldwide tariff, which was designed to restore certain trade duties that had been overturned by a Supreme Court ruling. However, Trump quickly decided to boost that rate by an additional 5 percentage points.

The tariff adjustment represents a significant shift in trade policy that could impact import costs for businesses and consumers across the country, including here in Delaware.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced Saturday he’s increasing his proposed worldwide tariff rate to 15%, just one day after declaring a 10% rate following a Supreme Court setback.

In a social media statement, Trump explained his decision came after conducting what he called a comprehensive analysis of what he described as a “ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday” by the nation’s highest court.

The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Trump lacked emergency authority to implement broad tariff measures, leading the president to sign an executive order Friday evening that circumvents Congress to establish a 10% import tax worldwide. However, these tariffs face a 150-day time limit without legislative extension.

Trump’s announcement to further increase the global import tax represents another indication that despite judicial constraints, the Republican leader remains determined to unpredictably employ his preferred economic and diplomatic pressure tool. His pattern of announcing tariff adjustments with minimal warning throughout the past year has disrupted financial markets and concerned international partners.

Saturday’s declaration appears to signal Trump’s intention to leverage the temporary global tariffs as a show of strength.

“During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform.

The executive order Trump executed Friday evening set February 24 as the implementation date for the 10% tariff. The White House has not yet responded to inquiries about when an updated order reflecting the 15% rate would be signed.

Beyond the temporary tariffs Trump now wants set at 15%, the president indicated Friday he’s also pursuing additional tariffs using different federal statutes that mandate Commerce Department investigations.

Trump launched an unusually direct criticism of the Supreme Court justices who voted against him in the 6-3 ruling, including two he nominated during his previous presidency, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. During Friday’s news conference, Trump stated about the two justices: “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families.”

His frustration continued Friday evening with social media posts targeting Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the majority and authored the main opinion. Saturday morning brought another post where Trump named Justice Brett Kavanaugh his “new hero” for writing a 63-page dissenting opinion. He also commended Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito for their minority positions, saying of the three dissenting justices: “There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they want to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

WASHINGTON – Following a Supreme Court decision that invalidated his earlier tariff program, President Donald Trump announced Saturday that he will boost temporary import duties on nearly all foreign goods entering the United States from 10% to 15%, reaching the highest rate permitted by law.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday determined that Trump had overstepped his presidential powers when he implemented various higher tariff rates using an economic emergency statute. Trump quickly responded by establishing the 10% universal tariff rate immediately after the court’s decision.

The updated import duties operate under different legislation called Section 122, which permits tariffs as high as 15% but mandates that Congress must approve any extension beyond a 150-day period.

Trump announced via social media Saturday that he plans to utilize this timeframe to develop additional tariff measures that are “legally permissible.” His administration plans to invoke two additional laws that authorize import taxes on particular products or nations following investigations into national security concerns or unfair trading practices.

“I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been ‘ripping’ the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level,” Trump declared in his Truth Social statement.

Since the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling, Trump has demonstrated no indication of retreating from his international trade confrontation, criticizing specific justices personally while maintaining his authority to implement tariffs according to his judgment.

A Delaware-area woman who was rescued from an Iranian orphanage by a US Air Force veteran in the 1970s now faces the terrifying possibility of being sent back to Iran – a nation where her Christian faith could mean imprisonment or death.

The woman, whose identity is being protected due to her precarious legal status, represents one of thousands of international adoptees who fell through cracks in America’s adoption and immigration systems and never received citizenship.

Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security sent her a notice to appear before an immigration judge in California for deportation proceedings. Her alleged crime? Overstaying her visa in March 1974 – when she was just 4 years old. She has no criminal history.

“I never imagined it would get to where it is today,” the woman explained, expressing her fear that being sent to Iran as a Christian and daughter of an American military officer could result in her death. “I always told myself that there is no way that this country could possibly send someone to their death in a country they left as an orphan. How could the United States do that?”

Her fears have intensified as the Trump administration has deployed significant military assets to the Middle East, raising the possibility of armed conflict with Iran over nuclear negotiations.

The Associated Press had previously featured this woman’s story in 2024, highlighting how numerous foreign adoptees remained without citizenship because their American parents failed to complete naturalization procedures. She has spent years attempting to resolve her legal status, meaning DHS has known about her case since at least 2008. She estimates government files on her situation span thousands of pages, though she cannot explain why deportation proceedings began now.

While the Trump administration emphasizes removing dangerous criminals through mass deportations, many individuals without criminal backgrounds have been caught up in enforcement actions. This woman’s only law enforcement encounter was a traffic stop two decades ago for phone use while driving. She maintains employment in corporate healthcare, pays taxes regularly, and owns property in California.

“When the media refuses to give names, it makes it impossible to provide details on specific cases or even verify any of this even happened or that the people even exist. If you can’t do your job, we can’t do ours,” DHS responded in a statement. The AP provided detailed information about her deportation letter, including specific reasons cited and her March 4 court date, without revealing her identity.

An immigration judge postponed her hearing until later next month and granted her attorney Emily Howe’s request that the woman not appear in person – providing relief since they worried immigration agents might arrest her at the courthouse.

Her adoptive father endured capture by German forces during World War II in 1943, remaining a prisoner until the war ended. After retiring from Air Force service, he worked as a government contractor in Iran, where he and his wife discovered her at an orphanage in 1972 and adopted her at age 2.

The family returned to America in 1973, with local newspapers running a full-page feature about their new daughter. Her adoption finalized in 1975, but parents were required to separately naturalize adopted children through federal immigration agencies at that time. Both adoptive parents have since passed away.

She discovered her lack of citizenship only when applying for a passport at 38. The reason for this oversight remains unclear. Among her father’s documents, she found a 1975 letter from an attorney stating he was coordinating with immigration officials, noting “it appears this matter is concluded,” and billing her father for services rendered.

Rather than hiding her situation, she has spent years seeking assistance from various sources: the State Department, immigration authorities, and senators. She has reached out to her congresswoman, Republican Rep. Young Kim of California, without success. Kim’s office recently responded to her deportation concerns by stating they were “not able to advise or interfere.”

“It just baffles me that it’s OK to send me to a foreign country that I could potentially die or I could get imprisoned because of a clerical error,” she stated.

Contemporary adoptees avoid this legal uncertainty thanks to legislation Congress passed in 2000, automatically granting citizenship to all legally adopted foreign children. However, lawmakers did not apply this retroactively, and it only covered those under 18 when enacted, excluding everyone born before February 27, 1983.

A diverse coalition spanning from the Southern Baptist Convention to progressive immigration organizations has lobbied Congress continuously to pass additional legislation helping older adoptees excluded from the original law, but Congress has not taken action. These advocates say the current deportation threat represents exactly the scenario they worked to prevent.

“I’m horrified. It’s rare for me to feel shocked by a story these days. But this is an absolutely unbelievable situation,” said Hannah Daniel, former director of public policy for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention’s lobbying division, who spent years urging legislators to address this issue.

International adoption has traditionally received bipartisan support from lawmakers. Many Christian denominations promote international adoption as a religious obligation, reflecting God’s acceptance of believers into a spiritual family.

Daniel, who recently joined World Relief, a Christian humanitarian organization, believes threatening to deport a Christian adoptee to Iran creates a conflict between two causes she and fellow Christians strongly support: international adoption and protecting persecuted Christians worldwide.

“That is what is most troubling to me about this: We are a nation that prides itself on fighting for religious freedom both here and abroad,” Daniel explained. “And it feels so antithetical to that to then say we’re going to send this person who, for me, is a sister in Christ to face a death sentence.”

She described the situation as “un-American and unconscionable.”

Ryan Brown, chief executive of Open Doors, a nonprofit supporting persecuted Christians globally, explained that while some Iranians are born Christian and face widespread discrimination, those considered converts from Islam to Christianity face much worse treatment. He expects a deported adoptee would be classified as a convert.

“It is assumed that you are an enemy of the state. It is assumed that if you are a Christian, that you are aligned to the West and you desire to see that the regime toppled,” he explained. “There is no benefit of the doubt extended.”

Converted Christians face routine arrests, with some receiving death sentences.

“Their prisons are world renowned for their deplorable conditions,” Brown noted.

Iranian facilities lack proper sanitation, with limited food, water, and medical care. These prisons are “notoriously more evil for women,” he said, with female inmates regularly reporting sexual assault by guards and forced marriages.

Brown, himself an adoptive parent, found it difficult to imagine what a Christian woman accustomed to American freedoms might endure arriving in Iran. She speaks no Persian and knows nothing about Iranian customs, having lived an entirely American life.

“I cannot even fathom that,” Brown said. “My prayers are with her.”

The woman believes Iran would view her with additional suspicion given her father’s military background and work as a US government contractor.

She grew up hearing her father’s wartime experiences and reading his prison camp journal, documenting the cold and hunger he endured. She felt proud of his sacrifices and service to the country she believed had rescued her.

During difficult moments now, she looks at her favorite photograph of him in military dress uniform, medals displayed on his left shoulder, wearing a subtle, confident smile.

“I’m proud of my father’s legacy. I’m part of his legacy. And what’s happening to me is wrong,” she said. “And I know that he was here, it would break his heart to know that I’m on this path.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has targeted over 20 communities with large warehouse facilities as part of a massive $45 billion detention center expansion program. Many local governments are expressing frustration that federal officials are keeping them uninformed about property acquisitions until transactions are finalized. Several warehouse owners have withdrawn from potential sales agreements.

Here’s what’s happening in various locations across the country:

Arizona state’s chief prosecutor Kris Mayes wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem explaining that local authorities received no advance notice before ICE acquired a 418,000-square-foot warehouse facility in Surprise, a Phoenix-area community, for $70 million.

Federal documents later revealed by ICE indicate the Department of Homeland Security projects spending $150 million to transform the building into a processing center with 1,500 beds.

A television journalist in Orlando observed private contractors and federal representatives touring a 439,945-square-foot industrial facility last month. When questioned by a WFTV correspondent, ICE senior adviser David Venturella described the visit as “exploratory.”

Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer issued a statement saying the city received no communication from federal authorities and lacks legal authority to prevent a potential ICE operation.

ICE acquired a large warehouse facility in Social Circle for $128.6 million. City documents from DHS reveal plans for two additional buildings as well. The three structures combined would encompass 2.3 million square feet.

Plans are also underway to transform a warehouse in Oakwood into an ICE processing center, according to a statement from Republican U.S. Rep. Andrew Clyde, though no property deed has been recorded. City Manager B.R. White said his first indication of an impending transaction came when a warehouse supervisor informed a city inspector he’d received orders to evacuate the work site for new owners — the federal government.

Following concerns raised by Merrillville officials about ICE representatives touring a new 275,000-square-foot warehouse, property owner Opus Holding LLC issued a letter stating it is not in negotiations with federal authorities regarding the facility. The correspondence noted Opus was restricted in what information it could disclose due to legal matters.

ICE acquired a warehouse located approximately 60 miles northwest of Baltimore for $102.4 million, according to a deed executed last month. The document was discovered by Project Salt Box, a Maryland ICE monitoring organization.

Washington County officials announced via Facebook that DHS had notified them in advance about considering the warehouse purchase for use as a “new ICE Baltimore Processing Facility.” County commissioners subsequently approved a resolution supporting ICE operations.

ICE revealed its acquisition of a facility in Romulus only after completing the purchase. City officials responded through a Facebook post expressing concern about the “lack of prior notification.”

Warehouse owners in the Minneapolis-area communities of Woodbury and Shakopee withdrew from potential ICE agreements following public opposition, according to local authorities.

Republican U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker announced that Noem agreed to seek alternative locations after local elected officials and zoning authorities opposed a potential detention facility in Byhalia.

Following weeks of community pressure, development company Platform Ventures declared it would not proceed with selling a large warehouse in Kansas City.

Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte engaged in disputes with federal officials after ICE revealed plans to spend $158 million converting a Merrimack warehouse into a 500-bed processing facility.

The conflict escalated when interim ICE Director Todd Lyons testified that DHS “has worked with Gov. Ayotte” and provided her with an economic impact analysis.

Ayotte responded that the claim was “simply not true.” She stated the analysis arrived hours after Lyons’ testimony. The document incorrectly referenced the “ripple effects to the Oklahoma economy” and revenue from state sales and income taxes, neither of which New Hampshire imposes.

Roxbury announced Friday that ICE had completed the warehouse purchase despite the municipality offering tax incentives to the owner to prevent the sale.

Property transaction documents showing the purchase price were not yet accessible online. The announcement occurred just two days after ICE acknowledged it had made a “mistake” in previously announcing the acquisition.

“Let us be clear: Roxbury Township will not passively accept this outcome,” the mayor and city council stated in a press release.

ICE said Tuesday it erred when it announced acquiring a vacant warehouse in Chester. New York state Assemblyman Brian Maher reported Friday that ICE is no longer evaluating the facility.

Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt announced last month that property owners had notified him they are no longer in discussions with DHS regarding a potential warehouse acquisition or lease.

DHS bought a warehouse in Tremont Township for $119.5 million and another in Upper Bern Township for $87.4 million. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has stated his administration will oppose DHS plans to convert the warehouses in rural eastern Pennsylvania areas into immigrant detention and processing facilities.

In Socorro, an El Paso-area community, ICE spent $122.8 million for three warehouses totaling 826,780 square feet. ICE also paid $66.1 million for a 639,595-square-foot warehouse in San Antonio. Both cities’ mayors oppose the facilities.

However, another Texas deal was cancelled due to community resistance. In Hutchins, a Dallas suburb, a real estate firm confirmed it was approached about one of its properties but would not sell or lease any buildings to DHS for detention purposes. California-based Majestic Realty Co. offered no explanation in its statement.

Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall expressed appreciation in her State of the City address that warehouse owners ICE was considering for a detention facility had decided not to sell or lease the property to federal authorities.

Jim Pattison Developments stated last month that it learned of the intended warehouse use in Richmond, Virginia suburbs after agreeing to sell to a U.S. government contractor. Following boycott threats, the Vancouver-based company announced the transaction “will not be proceeding.”

SOCORRO, Texas — Federal immigration authorities have been conducting a stealth campaign to acquire enormous warehouse facilities nationwide for detention purposes, frequently bypassing local government notification entirely.

The Department of Homeland Security completed a $122.8 million purchase of three massive warehouses totaling 826,000 square feet in Socorro, Texas, near the Mexican border. Local officials discovered the transaction only after the deed appeared in public records.

“Nobody from the federal government bothered to pick up the phone or even send us any type of correspondence letting us know what’s about to take place,” stated Rudy Cruz Jr., mayor of the 40,000-resident community located outside El Paso.

Socorro represents one of approximately 20 locations nationwide where Immigration and Customs Enforcement has targeted large warehouse properties as part of a $45-billion detention facility expansion program.

With declining public approval for the agency’s operations and the current administration’s immigration enforcement policies, numerous communities are voicing opposition to mass detention facilities. Local leaders express concerns about potential strain on water systems and municipal services, along with reduced property tax collections. Many mayors, county officials, governors and congressional representatives have learned about ICE’s acquisition plans only after purchases were finalized, creating surprise and anger even in regions that previously supported the administration.

“I just feel,” Cruz commented, whose spouse was born in Mexico, “that they do these things in silence so that they don’t get opposition.”

ICE, operating under DHS oversight, has acquired no fewer than seven warehouse properties across Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Texas, according to filed deeds. Additional transactions have been announced but remain incomplete, while buyers have canceled eight other planned purchases.

DHS rejected characterizing these properties as warehouses, emphasizing in an official statement that they would become “very well structured detention facilities meeting our regular detention standards.”

The acquisition process has experienced significant confusion. ICE acknowledged this past week making an “error” regarding announced warehouse purchases in Chester, New York, and Roxbury, New Jersey. Roxbury subsequently confirmed Friday that their sale had been completed.

DHS has verified its search for additional detention space but has not revealed specific locations prior to acquisitions. Some municipalities learned of ICE warehouse scouting through media reports. Others received information from an online spreadsheet circulated by activists with unknown origins.

The warehouse project’s full extent became clear February 13th when New Hampshire’s governor’s office, responding to opposition against a planned 500-bed processing facility, released ICE documentation showing the agency’s plan to spend $38.3 billion expanding detention capacity to 92,000 beds.

Since the current administration began, ICE detention population has grown from 40,000 to 75,000 individuals housed across more than 225 locations.

ICE could utilize these warehouses for consolidation and capacity expansion. The documentation outlines a project including eight large-scale detention facilities housing 7,000 to 10,000 detainees each, plus 16 smaller regional processing centers. The document also mentions acquiring 10 existing “turnkey” facilities.

Funding comes from the comprehensive tax and spending legislation passed by Congress last year that nearly doubled DHS’s budget. The administration is utilizing military contracts for detention center construction.

These contracts permit considerable secrecy and enable DHS to proceed rapidly without standard processes and protections, according to Charles Tiefer, professor emeritus of law at the University of Baltimore Law School.

In Socorro, the ICE-purchased warehouses are so expansive that four and a half Walmart Supercenters could fit inside, contrasting sharply with the remaining Spanish colonial and mission architecture characterizing the community.

During a recent City Council session, public testimony continued for hours. “I think a lot of innocent people are getting caught up in their dragnet,” said Jorge Mendoza, an El Paso County retiree whose grandparents immigrated from Mexico.

Multiple speakers referenced concerns about three recent fatalities at an ICE detention facility at nearby Fort Bliss Army base.

Even communities that supported the administration in 2024 have been surprised by ICE’s plans and expressed concerns.

In rural Pennsylvania’s Berks County, commissioner Christian Leinbach contacted the district attorney, sheriff, jail warden and county emergency services director upon hearing ICE might purchase a warehouse in Upper Bern Township, located 3 miles from his residence.

None had any information.

Days later, a local land records official informed him that ICE had purchased the building — marketed by developers as a “state-of-the art logistics center” — for $87.4 million.

“There was absolutely no warning,” Leinbach stated during a meeting where he expressed concerns that converting the warehouse into a federal facility would eliminate over $800,000 in local tax revenue.

ICE has promoted the income taxes its employees would generate, though the facilities themselves will be property tax-exempt.

In Social Circle, Georgia, which also strongly backed the administration in 2024, officials were shocked by ICE’s plans for a facility potentially housing 7,500 to 10,000 individuals after learning about it through a reporter.

The city, with just 5,000 residents and concerns about infrastructure requirements for such a detention center, only heard from DHS after the $128.6 million sale of a 1 million-square-foot warehouse was completed. Like Socorro and Berks County, Social Circle questioned whether water and sewage systems could handle the demand.

ICE has stated it conducted proper analysis to ensure sites wouldn’t overwhelm municipal utilities. However, Social Circle said the agency’s assessment depended on a not-yet-constructed sewer treatment plant.

“To be clear, the City has repeatedly communicated that it does not have the capacity or resources to accommodate this demand, and no proposal presented to date has demonstrated otherwise,” the city stated.

In the Phoenix suburb of Surprise, officials sent a harsh letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem after ICE purchased a large warehouse in a residential neighborhood approximately one mile from a high school without advance notice. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, suggested potential legal action to have the location declared a public nuisance.

Back in Socorro, residents waiting to oppose the ICE facility filled the City Council chambers and spilled into hallways, some standing near murals honoring the World War II-era Braceros Program that permitted Mexican agricultural workers to serve as guest workers in the U.S. The program boosted Socorro’s economy and population before President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration began mass deportations in the 1950s targeting individuals who had crossed the border illegally.

Eduardo Castillo, formerly an attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, told city officials that challenging the federal government is intimidating but “not impossible.”

“If you don’t at least try,” he stated, “you will end up with another inhumane detention facility built in your jurisdiction and under your watch.”

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans experienced a brief moment of respite Friday from one of their biggest disagreements with the Trump administration, but that relief quickly evaporated.

The nation’s highest court overturned a major part of President Donald Trump’s worldwide tariff program, determining that Congress holds constitutional authority over tax imposition. Republican lawmakers initially responded to Friday morning’s ruling with cautious statements, with some offering praise, while GOP leadership indicated willingness to collaborate with Trump on future tariff policies.

However, by afternoon, Trump declared his intention to bypass Congress entirely, announcing a new worldwide 10% import tax. He’s implementing this under legislation that limits such tariffs to 150 days and has never been utilized in this manner previously. This choice could significantly impact the global economy while forcing Republicans to continue defending Trump’s tariff policies through the approaching midterm elections.

“I have the right to do tariffs, and I’ve always had the right to do tariffs,” Trump declared during a press conference, emphasizing his independence from congressional approval.

Trade tariffs represent one of the rare policy areas where Republican-led Congress has challenged Trump. Both chambers have previously approved measures criticizing tariffs imposed on trading allies like Canada. This issue also stands out as one where GOP legislators, raised in a traditionally free-trade party, have openly criticized Trump’s economic approach.

“The empty merits of sweeping trade wars with America’s friends were evident long before today’s decision,” former longtime Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell stated, noting that tariffs increase housing costs and harm industries crucial to Kentucky.

Democrats, seeking congressional control, plan to adopt McConnell’s argument. During Friday’s press conference, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer stated Trump’s new tariffs “will still raise people’s costs and they will hurt the American people as much as his old tariffs did.”

Schumer urged Republicans to prevent Trump from implementing the 10% global tariff. Democrats also demanded refunds for consumers affected by the Supreme Court-overturned tariffs.

“The American people paid for these tariffs and the American people should get their money back,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., posted on social media.

This situation reinforces Democrats’ key midterm message: Trump has failed to reduce living costs and has increased prices through tariffs.

Medium-sized American companies have absorbed import taxes by raising customer prices, reducing workforce, or accepting decreased profits, according to JPMorganChase Institute research.

Friday’s Supreme Court ruling clearly established that most justices believe Congress exclusively holds constitutional tariff authority. Nevertheless, Trump immediately issued an executive order referencing the Trade Act of 1974, which allows presidential temporary import taxes during “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” or similar international payment issues. This authority remains unused and legally untested.

Republicans have occasionally cautioned Trump about potential economic consequences of his tariff proposals. However, before Trump’s “Liberation Day” global tariffs last April, Republican leadership avoided directly opposing the president.

Some GOP lawmakers supported the new tariff approach, revealing generational divisions among Republicans, with younger members strongly backing Trump’s strategy. Instead of following traditional free trade principles, they advocate “America First” protectionism, hoping to revitalize American manufacturing.

Ohio freshman Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno criticized Friday’s Supreme Court decision and urged GOP colleagues to “codify the tariffs that had made our country the hottest country on earth!”

Meanwhile, some Republican tariff opponents celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling. Rep. Don Bacon, an administration critic not seeking reelection, posted on social media that “Congress must stand on its own two feet, take tough votes and defend its authorities.”

Bacon anticipated increased Republican resistance. He and several other GOP members recently forced a House vote on Trump’s Canada tariffs. Following that measure’s passage, Trump threatened political retaliation against Republicans opposing his tariff plans.

The annual State of the Union address has transformed dramatically from its humble beginnings into today’s prime-time political theater, where partisan battles and memorable confrontations often overshadow policy discussions.

When President George Washington delivered the nation’s first such address in 1790, it was a concise 1,089-word presentation that could be completed faster than modern presidents spend on their opening remarks. The event has since evolved into what political observers describe as a “pressure chamber” reflecting America’s deep political divisions.

President Donald Trump is scheduled to address Congress at 9 p.m. ET on Tuesday, continuing a tradition that has seen significant changes over more than two centuries.

The format itself has undergone major shifts throughout history. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson opted to send written remarks instead of speaking directly to lawmakers, establishing a practice that lasted over 100 years. President Woodrow Wilson revived in-person delivery in 1913.

Television fundamentally changed the address when President Harry Truman gave the first televised version in 1947. The shift to prime-time occurred in 1965 under President Lyndon Johnson, who moved the speech to evening hours to capture maximum viewership.

As political polarization has intensified, these evening presentations have become increasingly contentious, with supporters of the president frequently standing to applaud while opposition members conspicuously remain seated.

This year’s address carries additional drama, as some Democratic lawmakers plan to skip Trump’s speech entirely, organizing an outdoor demonstration against his policies instead. Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, will provide the traditional opposition response following the president’s remarks.

Adding to the tension, Trump will address Supreme Court justices just four days after a 6-3 court majority, including two of his own appointees, overturned his signature tariffs as exceeding presidential powers.

SPEECHES GROW LONGER OVER TIME

Modern addresses have expanded far beyond Washington’s brief original. President Bill Clinton established a duration record in 2000 with a speech lasting 1 hour, 28 minutes and 49 seconds. Trump’s 2025 address exceeded even that length, running 1 hour, 39 minutes and 32 seconds, according to American Presidency Project data.

Last year’s Trump speech occurred too early in his return to office to qualify as an official State of the Union, receiving the designation of a joint congressional address instead.

The tradition of featuring special guests began in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan introduced Lenny Skutnik, a Congressional Budget Office worker who had heroically saved a plane crash victim from the Potomac River.

These guest appearances have sometimes sparked controversy, particularly in 2020 when Trump presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom to controversial radio personality Rush Limbaugh during the address.

MEMORABLE CONFRONTATIONS

Recent years have produced several viral moments of open conflict during presidential addresses:

During a 2009 healthcare speech, Republican Representative Joe Wilson interrupted President Barack Obama by shouting “You lie!” Wilson was protesting Obama’s assertion that proposed healthcare legislation wouldn’t cover undocumented immigrants. Wilson subsequently apologized amid bipartisan condemnation of the protocol breach.

In 2010, Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which he claimed would “open the floodgates” to unlimited corporate and foreign election spending, prompted Justice Samuel Alito to visibly shake his head and apparently mouth “not true” – an unusual display of emotion from typically stoic justices.

The 2020 address featured a dramatic confrontation between Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Trump declined to shake Pelosi’s extended hand when delivering his speech copy, while Pelosi omitted the traditional “high privilege and distinct honor” phrase when introducing him. At the speech’s conclusion, Pelosi tore up her copy of Trump’s remarks before television cameras. She later told reporters it was “the courteous thing to do, considering the alternative.”

President Joe Biden engaged in heated exchanges with Republican lawmakers during his 2023 address after interruptions and booing. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene called Biden a “liar” when he claimed some Republicans wanted Medicare and Social Security to “sunset.” Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee shouted “it’s your fault” at Biden regarding the fentanyl crisis.

Biden’s 2024 speech featured sharp attacks on Trump without naming him directly, accusing his Republican opponent of threatening democracy, appeasing Russia, and obstructing immigration reform. When Republicans booed his claims about tax cuts for wealthy Americans, Biden improvised a response: “Oh, no? You guys don’t want another $2 trillion tax cut? I kind of thought that’s what your plan was.”

POLICY-CHANGING MOMENTS

Some State of the Union addresses have announced major policy shifts that reshaped American governance.

President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1941 “Four Freedoms” speech, delivered 11 months before America entered World War II, outlined universal human rights: freedom of speech, worship, want, and fear.

In 1964, Johnson proclaimed an “unconditional War on Poverty,” launching extensive social programs that transformed federal spending and government’s role in addressing economic inequality.

President Bill Clinton declared in 1996 that “the era of big government is over,” signaling his administration’s shift toward bipartisan cooperation with Republicans.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, President George W. Bush used his 2002 address to label Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an “axis of evil,” marking America’s turn toward more aggressive foreign policy.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major setback to President Donald Trump on Friday, rejecting his sweeping global tariff plan and demonstrating the judicial branch’s willingness to limit executive power.

Following a year where the nation’s highest court supported Trump in approximately two dozen cases – enabling rapid changes to immigration policy, military regulations, and federal employment rules – the justices drew a clear line with this decision.

Friday’s landmark 6-3 ruling dismantled one of Trump’s key second-term objectives, determining that his comprehensive tariff strategy against nearly all U.S. trade partners violated federal law.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts authored the decisive opinion, which left no room for ambiguity in completely invalidating the tariffs without addressing potential impacts on refunds, trade agreements, or political consequences.

The decision has renewed the Supreme Court’s position as a constitutional check on presidential authority, addressing growing concerns from critics and legal experts about the court’s independence.

“The court has shown it will not necessarily provide legal cover for every plank of Trump’s platform,” explained Peter Shane, a constitutional law expert at New York University School of Law.

The majority opinion rejected Trump’s interpretation of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling that no previous president had attempted to use this statute for tariff implementation.

Roberts directly challenged Trump’s legal reasoning in the written decision: “Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate … importation,’ as granted to the president in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not.”

William & Mary Law School professor Jonathan Adler emphasized the ruling’s broader significance: “The decision shows that the Supreme Court is serious about policing the scope of power delegated to the president by Congress.”

“The president cannot just pour new wine out of old bottles,” Adler continued. “If there are problems current statutes do not address, the president must ask Congress for a newer vintage.”

The verdict crossed traditional ideological boundaries within the court’s 6-3 conservative majority. Roberts joined with fellow conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett – both Trump appointees from his first presidency – alongside the three liberal justices to overturn the tariff policy. Three remaining conservative justices opposed the decision.

Trump responded with harsh criticism, targeting the Republican-appointed justices who voted against him with personal attacks, labeling them “fools” and “lapdogs” for Democrats.

“They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution,” Trump declared to reporters, adding his belief that “the court has been swayed by foreign interests.”

Throughout 2025, the Supreme Court had consistently backed Trump’s emergency appeals to suspend lower court injunctions blocking his most aggressive policies while legal challenges proceeded.

These emergency decisions – part of the court’s “shadow docket” – typically receive expedited handling without comprehensive briefing or oral arguments, contrasting with regular cases that undergo months of review. The tariff case received full argument proceedings in November.

In 28 emergency cases during Trump’s current term, the court ruled favorably for the administration in 24 instances, with one case dismissed as moot. These victories permitted Trump to dismiss federal workers, assume control of independent agencies, exclude transgender individuals from military service, and deport migrants to nations with which they have no connection.

These successes built upon a significant 2024 Roberts-authored ruling granting Trump extensive immunity from criminal prosecution related to 2020 election interference allegations. The combination of that decision and subsequent wins raised questions about the Supreme Court’s independence and commitment to challenging presidential overreach.

Trump previously demanded impeachment of a judge who ruled against his deportation policies, calling the jurist a “Radical Left Lunatic” – prompting public criticism from Chief Justice Roberts.

Concerns have also emerged about potential Trump administration defiance of adverse federal court orders, which could trigger a constitutional crisis.

The pattern of pro-Trump decisions frustrated the court’s liberal wing, with Justice Ketanja Brown Jackson noting in one opinion that “this administration always wins.”

However, some legal experts counseled patience, suggesting the court’s recent accommodation of Trump might shift when examining major policies through thorough deliberation – which occurred Friday.

“The shadow docket decisions were never evidence of the court being particularly sympathetic to or solicitous of the Trump administration,” Adler observed. “This case, on the other hand, is the first time the court has considered one of the Trump administration’s policy initiatives on the merits.”

The court will examine another controversial Trump policy on April 1, hearing arguments about his directive limiting birthright citizenship in the United States.

During Trump’s initial presidency, the Supreme Court handed him notable defeats in crucial cases, including rejection of his census citizenship question proposal and his attempt to terminate deportation protections for “Dreamers” – immigrants who entered the country illegally as children.

University of California, Berkeley law professor John Yoo highlighted the bipartisan nature of Friday’s tariff ruling, noting participation from justices appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents.

“The decision belies the attacks from the left that the Supreme Court – particularly its conservative majority – simply rubber-stamps the Trump administration’s policies,” said Yoo, a former clerk to conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.

Shane observed that the tariff case avoided requiring the court to evaluate Trump’s policy wisdom or judgment quality, potentially preserving presidential power in other areas.

“The ruling does suggest that, on pure questions of law that do not put the court in the position of smacking down Trump’s motives or second-guessing his judgment, there is a majority that will not rubber-stamp his action,” Shane concluded.

A retired senior military commander has spoken out against the Pentagon’s ongoing dismissal of transgender service members, describing the policy as a damaging error that weakens military capabilities.

The Pentagon is currently discharging thousands of transgender personnel as part of broader efforts to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs within the armed forces. This action is taking place during a period of heightened international tensions around the world.

The former general’s criticism highlights concerns about how emphasis on gender identity issues may be diverting attention from core military preparedness and operational effectiveness. Military experts are questioning whether these policy changes could impact the armed forces’ ability to maintain readiness while facing multiple global challenges.

The dismissals represent a significant shift in military personnel policy, affecting service members who had been serving openly under previous guidelines. The policy change has sparked debate about balancing social policies with military effectiveness during uncertain times internationally.

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah’s highest court declined Friday to consider Republican legislators’ challenge to new congressional boundaries that could hand Democrats control of one of the state’s four GOP-held House seats this November.

Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant wrote in the court’s order that justices lack “jurisdiction over Legislative Defendants’ appeal.”

The Republican lawmakers were challenging a November ruling where a state judge implemented congressional boundaries that create a district favorable to Democrats, replacing a map designed to keep all four House seats in Republican hands.

Under the new boundaries, Salt Lake County remains largely consolidated in a single district rather than being split across all four districts as before — a change that keeps the heavily Democratic area’s voting power intact.

GOP legislators contend the court overstepped its authority by implementing district lines the Legislature never approved.

Republican Senate President Stuart Adams criticized Friday’s decision, declaring the “chaos continues.”

“We will keep defending a process that respects the Constitution and ensures Utah voters across our state have their voices respected,” Adams stated.

Katharine Biele, who leads the League of Women Voters of Utah and was among those who sued over the original map, praised the court’s action.

“We are encouraged that the court dismissed this improper appeal and allowed the process to move forward without disruption to voters or election administrators,” Biele said.

The redistricting controversy began with an August ruling by Judge Dianna Gibson, who invalidated Utah’s post-2020 census congressional map after finding lawmakers ignored voter-approved anti-gerrymandering measures.

The dispute has thrust Utah into a nationwide redistricting fight, particularly after President Donald Trump called on Republican-controlled states to redraw maps mid-decade to help the GOP maintain House control in 2026.

The court-approved boundaries significantly improve Democratic chances of winning a seat in a state that hasn’t sent a Democrat to Congress since early 2021.

Emma Petty Addams, who co-leads Mormon Women for Ethical Government and also sued over the original map, said Friday that “the courts have provided an important check on the Legislature, affirming the people’s constitutional right to alter and reform their government.”

The decision arrives just weeks before candidates must file paperwork to run for reelection.

A separate federal lawsuit remains active, filed in February by two of Utah’s Republican House members. That case argues the state judge violated federal constitutional principles by rejecting the GOP-controlled Legislature’s district boundaries.

WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump continues moving America closer to potential military conflict with Iran, despite advisers pushing him to concentrate on economic concerns that matter most to voters before this year’s midterm elections.

Trump has directed massive military deployments to the Middle East and authorized preparations for possible weeks-long aerial strikes against Iran. However, he hasn’t provided detailed explanations to Americans about why he might launch the most aggressive U.S. action against the Islamic Republic since 1979’s revolution.

This Iranian focus represents the clearest indication of how international affairs, including expanded military force usage, has dominated Trump’s agenda during his second term’s initial 13 months, frequently overshadowing domestic concerns like living costs that polling data shows Americans prioritize.

According to a senior White House official, despite Trump’s aggressive language, the administration lacks “unified support” for proceeding with Iranian attacks.

Trump’s team remains conscious about avoiding a “distracted message” toward undecided voters who prioritize economic issues, the official told Reuters anonymously since they lacked press authorization.

White House advisers and Republican campaign officials want Trump emphasizing economic matters, which was highlighted as the primary campaign priority during this week’s private briefing attended by multiple cabinet secretaries, according to someone present. Trump didn’t attend that meeting.

A second White House official responding to Reuters inquiries stated Trump’s international policy agenda “has directly translated into wins for the American people.”

“All of the President’s actions put America First – be it through making the entire world safer or bringing economic deliverables home to our country,” the official said.

November’s elections will determine whether Trump’s Republican Party maintains control over both Congressional chambers. Losing either chamber to Democrats would challenge Trump during his presidency’s remaining years.

Republican strategist Rob Godfrey warned that extended Iranian conflict would create substantial political dangers for Trump and fellow Republicans.

“The president has to keep in mind the political base that propelled him to the Republican nomination – three consecutive times – and that continues to stick by him is skeptical of foreign engagement and foreign entanglements because ending the era of ‘forever wars’ was an explicit campaign promise,” Godfrey said.

Republicans intend campaigning on individual tax reductions passed by Congress last year, plus programs reducing housing and certain prescription drug expenses.

Despite some opposing voices, many within Trump’s isolationist “Make America Great Again” movement backed last month’s quick operation that removed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. However, he might encounter greater resistance if steering America into Iranian warfare, since Iran represents a much stronger opponent.

Trump, who has consistently threatened Iranian strikes unless they agree on nuclear program terms, repeated his warning Friday, stating Tehran “better negotiate a fair deal.”

America targeted Iranian nuclear facilities in June, and Iran has promised fierce retaliation if attacked again.

Trump secured 2024 reelection through his ‘America First’ platform largely by promising inflation reduction and avoiding expensive foreign conflicts, but he’s struggled convincing Americans he’s making progress lowering high prices, polling shows.

Nevertheless, Republican strategist Lauren Cooley suggested Trump’s supporters might back Iranian military action if it’s decisive and limited.

“The White House will need to clearly connect any action to protecting American security and economic stability at home,” she said.

Even with polls showing minimal public desire for another foreign war and Trump struggling to stay focused on addressing voters’ economic anxieties, any Iranian escalation represents risky moves by a president who recently acknowledged to Reuters that his party could face midterm difficulties.

Foreign policy historically hasn’t been decisive for midterm voters. However, having deployed substantial aircraft carriers, warships and warplanes to the Middle East, Trump may have cornered himself into military action unless Iran makes major concessions it’s shown little willingness accepting. Otherwise he risks appearing internationally weak.

Trump’s reasons for possible attacks have remained unclear and inconsistent. He initially threatened January strikes responding to Iran’s violent suppression of nationwide protests but then retreated.

He’s recently tied military threats to demands that Iran end nuclear programs and suggested “regime change,” but neither he nor aides have explained how airstrikes could achieve that.

The second White House official insisted Trump “has been clear that he always prefers diplomacy, and that Iran should make a deal before it is too late.” The president, the official added, has emphasized Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon or the capacity to build one, and that they cannot enrich uranium.”

What many perceive as unclear messaging contrasts sharply with then-President George W. Bush’s extensive public justification for 2003’s Iraq invasion, which he said aimed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Although that mission relied on faulty intelligence and false claims, Bush’s stated objectives were initially clear.

Godfrey, the Republican strategist, noted independent voters – critical in close elections – will scrutinize Trump’s Iranian handling.

“Midterm voters and his base will be waiting for the president to make his case,” he said.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court delivered a decisive blow to President Donald Trump’s expansive tariff program on Friday, but justices sidestepped a massive financial puzzle: how to handle the $133 billion in import duties already collected under policies now deemed illegal.

Businesses across the country are already positioning themselves for potential refunds, though experts warn the path ahead will be complicated and messy.

Trade attorneys expect importers will eventually recover their money, but the process won’t be smooth. “It’s going to be a bumpy ride for awhile,” said Joyce Adetutu, a trade attorney with Vinson & Elkins law firm.

According to legal experts at Clark Hill, the refund process will likely involve multiple entities including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, New York’s specialized Court of International Trade, and various federal courts.

“The amount of money is substantial,” Adetutu noted. “The courts are going to have a hard time. Importers are going to have a hard time.”

However, she emphasized that given the Supreme Court’s strong rejection of Trump’s tariff authority, “it’s going to be really difficult not to have some sort of refund option.”

The court’s 6-3 decision Friday determined that Trump’s use of emergency powers legislation to implement the tariffs was invalid. Notably, two Trump-appointed justices voted with the majority to overturn this major component of his second-term economic agenda.

The contested tariffs were substantial levies Trump placed on nearly all nations worldwide last year, citing the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Supreme Court determined this law doesn’t grant presidential authority to impose import taxes, which constitutionally belongs to Congress.

Government customs officials have already gathered $133 billion through IEEPA tariffs by mid-December. However, everyday consumers shouldn’t expect direct compensation for higher prices they paid when businesses transferred tariff costs to customers; those refunds would more likely benefit the importing companies directly.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh criticized his fellow justices for avoiding the refund question entirely: “The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.”

Using language from Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s comments during November oral arguments, Kavanaugh predicted the refund process would likely become a “mess.”

Speaking to reporters Friday, Trump expressed frustration with the court’s ruling and said he felt “absolutely ashamed” of justices who voted against his tariff program. “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years,” Trump stated. “We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.”

Eliminating the IEEPA tariffs might benefit the economy by reducing inflation pressures. Tariff refunds could boost consumer spending and economic growth, though economists expect modest overall impact.

Many nations still face significant U.S. tariffs on particular industries, and Trump plans to implement replacement levies through alternative legal mechanisms. Any refunds that do materialize will take considerable time to distribute — TD Securities estimates 12 to 18 months.

U.S. customs already maintains procedures for refunding duties when importers demonstrate administrative errors occurred. Trade attorney Dave Townsend from Dorsey & Whitney suggests the agency might expand this existing framework to handle IEEPA tariff refunds.

Courts have previously established refund systems in trade disputes. During the 1990s, after courts declared a harbor maintenance fee on exports unconstitutional, they created an application process for exporters to recover their payments.

However, customs officials and courts have never confronted anything approaching this scale — thousands of importers seeking tens of billions in refunds simultaneously.

“Just because the process is difficult to administer doesn’t mean the government has the right to hold on to fees that were collected unlawfully,” explained Alexis Early, a trade lawyer with Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner.

Ryan Majerus, who works at King & Spalding and previously served as a federal trade official, said it remains unclear how authorities will manage such enormous refund demands. The government might streamline operations, potentially creating dedicated online portals for refund claims.

Yet Adetutu cautions that “the government is well-positioned to make this as difficult as possible for importers. I can see a world where they push as much responsibility as possible onto the importer” — potentially requiring court action to secure refunds.

Several major corporations, including Costco, Revlon, and food producer Bumble Bee Foods, had already filed refund lawsuits before the Supreme Court decision, positioning themselves advantageously if tariffs were overturned.

Additional legal conflicts seem inevitable. Manufacturers might pursue portions of supplier refunds if those suppliers had raised prices to cover tariff expenses.

“We may see years of ongoing litigation in multiple jurisdictions,” Early predicted.

Regular consumers face slim prospects for refund windfalls. Higher retail prices would be difficult to trace to specific tariffs. While Early wouldn’t recommend spending money on legal fees pursuing consumer refunds, she noted: “In America, we have the ability to file a lawsuit for anything we want.”

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, a Democratic Trump critic, has demanded state refunds representing his state’s 5.11 million households. In a letter released through his campaign, Pritzker calculated tariffs cost each Illinois household $1,700 — totaling $8.7 billion. He warned of “further action” if payment isn’t provided.

Nevada Treasurer Zach Conine submitted a $2.1 billion payment request to federal authorities Friday, seeking to recover tariff costs for his state.

“As Nevada’s chief investment officer, I have a responsibility to try to recoup every single dollar that the Trump Administration takes from Nevada families,” Conine stated.

President Donald Trump held his inaugural face-to-face meeting with Vietnamese Communist Party leader To Lam at the White House on Friday, where he pledged to help lift Vietnam from U.S. lists that limit the nation’s access to advanced American technology, according to details released by Vietnam’s government news outlet.

The historic White House encounter marked the first official in-person discussion between the two leaders, taking place after To Lam participated in Washington’s inaugural Board of Peace gathering.

This diplomatic meeting came on the heels of major commercial agreements totaling more than $30 billion, which will see Vietnamese carriers purchasing 90 planes from American aircraft manufacturer Boeing.

On the same day, Trump revealed plans for an immediate 10% tariff increase on most international imports following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn several of his previous comprehensive tariff policies.

WASHINGTON — Federal officials terminated a prosecutor within hours of his selection by judges to lead a prominent Virginia U.S. attorney’s office on Friday, escalating an ongoing dispute between the Trump administration and the judiciary over prosecutorial appointments.

James Hundley was unanimously selected by federal judges to take over as interim U.S. attorney for Virginia’s Eastern District, replacing former Trump attorney Lindsey Halligan in the role. However, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche quickly announced Hundley’s dismissal through social media, asserting executive authority over the appointment process.

“EDVA judges do not pick our US Attorney. POTUS does. James Hundley, you’re fired!” Blanche wrote on X.

Hundley, an attorney with over three decades of experience in both criminal and civil litigation, had not responded to requests for comment by Friday evening.

This dismissal represents the most recent disruption within one of the nation’s premier federal prosecution offices, which has experienced significant instability since September. The turmoil began when veteran prosecutor Erik Siebert stepped down under administration pressure to bring charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, two prominent Trump critics.

Following Siebert’s departure, the administration installed Halligan, a White House staff member, who proceeded to secure indictments against both Comey and James. However, a federal judge later ruled that Halligan’s appointment violated legal procedures, leading to the dismissal of both cases. The Justice Department has challenged this ruling on appeal.

Halligan stepped down from her position last month after district judges continued to question whether her appointment was legitimate under federal law.

While U.S. attorneys normally undergo Senate confirmation, federal statutes allow attorneys general to make temporary appointments for restricted periods. The Justice Department has faced multiple legal challenges for attempting to extend these temporary positions beyond their authorized terms, with judges frequently ruling such extensions improper.

A similar situation unfolded in northern New York last week, where the Justice Department dismissed a judge-appointed U.S. attorney after less than 24 hours on the job. District judges had selected that attorney after refusing to extend the term of the Trump administration’s preferred candidate, John Sarcone, beyond his 120-day limit.

Since President Donald Trump began his second term in January 2025, the nation’s highest court has been flooded with legal challenges to his administration’s actions across multiple policy areas.

The Supreme Court justices have weighed in on disputes involving immigration enforcement, federal agency independence, military policies, government workforce changes, and international trade measures.

TRADE POLICY SETBACK

In a significant blow to the administration’s economic agenda, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on February 20 against Trump’s extensive tariff program. The justices determined that his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act from 1977 went beyond presidential authority. The court emphasized that under the Constitution, Congress holds the power to establish taxes and tariffs, not the president. These tariffs had sparked international trade disputes, unsettled financial markets, and created worldwide economic instability since Trump launched his global trade offensive.

FEDERAL RESERVE INDEPENDENCE

The justices appeared doubtful about Trump’s unusual attempt to dismiss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook during January 21 oral arguments. The case centers on the central bank’s autonomy from political pressure. Congressional law establishing the Fed includes safeguards against political meddling, mandating that governors can only be removed “for cause,” though this term lacks clear definition or established procedures. Trump moved to terminate Cook in August, alleging mortgage fraud prior to her appointment – accusations Cook disputes. Cook, a Biden appointee, maintains these charges are merely a cover for policy disagreements. The court’s decision is anticipated by late June.

MILITARY DEPLOYMENT BLOCKED

On December 23, 2025, the court declined to authorize Trump’s plan to deploy National Guard forces to the Chicago region, part of his expanded domestic military operations in Democratic-controlled areas that opponents view as retribution against political rivals. The justices upheld U.S. District Judge April Perry’s injunction preventing the deployment of hundreds of troops in response to a lawsuit filed by Illinois state and local officials. The Justice Department had requested permission for the deployment while litigation continued.

AGENCY LEADERSHIP DISPUTES

During December 8, 2025 arguments, conservative justices signaled support for Trump’s dismissal of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, potentially strengthening executive power while threatening decades-old legal precedent. The case involves the administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling that found Trump overstepped his authority by removing the Democratic FTC member in March before her term concluded. Conservative justices seemed receptive to arguments that congressional tenure protections for independent agency heads unconstitutionally limit presidential authority. The court permitted Slaughter’s removal while the case proceeds, with a ruling expected by June’s end.

The justices postponed action on November 26, 2025, regarding Trump’s effort to remove the nation’s chief copyright official, temporarily keeping Shira Perlmutter in her position as U.S. register of copyrights and Copyright Office director while her legal challenge continues.

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Arguments are scheduled for April 1 concerning Trump’s controversial directive limiting birthright citizenship, which would fundamentally change how a 19th-century constitutional provision has been interpreted. A lower court blocked the executive order instructing federal agencies to deny citizenship recognition to children born in America if neither parent holds U.S. citizenship or permanent residency status. The court found Trump’s policy violated the 14th Amendment and existing federal law protecting birthright citizenship in a class-action case brought by affected families.

Earlier, on June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court restricted federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential policies.

The court supported Trump’s aggressive immigration stance on September 8, 2025, by allowing federal agents to conduct Southern California raids targeting individuals for deportation based on race or language. It granted the Justice Department’s request to suspend a judge’s order that temporarily prohibited agents from stopping or detaining people without “reasonable suspicion” of illegal presence, or based on race, ethnicity, or Spanish-speaking or accented English.

On October 3, 2025, the court again enabled the administration to eliminate temporary legal protection for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants, supporting Trump’s mass deportation priorities. It approved the administration’s request to halt U.S. District Judge Edward Chen’s ruling that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem lacked authority to terminate the Temporary Protected Status granted under Biden.

The court allowed the administration on May 30, 2025, to revoke temporary legal status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. It suspended U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s order blocking the termination of immigration “parole” for 532,000 migrants, potentially exposing them to swift removal.

On May 16, 2025, the court maintained its block on Trump’s deportations of Venezuelan migrants under an 1798 wartime law, citing inadequate due process. The justices granted an ACLU request to continue halting removals. The administration alleges these Venezuelans belong to the Tren de Aragua criminal organization.

The court cleared the way on June 23, 2025, for resumed deportations to “third countries” without allowing migrants to demonstrate potential harm they might face at their destination.

On April 10, 2025, the court ordered the administration to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran man erroneously deported to El Salvador. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on June 6 that Abrego had returned to face criminal charges for transporting illegal immigrants. Abrego entered a not guilty plea.

TRANSGENDER POLICIES

The court permitted Trump’s transgender military ban on May 6, 2025, allowing the armed forces to discharge thousands of current transgender service members and reject new applicants while legal challenges proceed. It granted the Justice Department’s request to lift U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle’s nationwide injunction blocking the policy implementation.

On November 6, 2025, the court allowed the administration to prohibit passport applicants from designating sex that reflects their gender identity, requiring documents to correspond only to birth-assigned sex while a class action lawsuit continues.

FEDERAL WORKFORCE CHANGES

The justices cleared the path on July 8, 2025, for massive government job cuts and extensive agency downsizing. They lifted U.S. District Judge Susan Illston’s order blocking large-scale federal layoffs termed “reductions in force.” Workforce cuts were planned across the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and over a dozen other agencies.

On July 23, 2025, the court allowed Trump to remove three Democratic Consumer Product Safety Commission members – Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. – strengthening presidential control over agencies designed to be independent.

The court permitted Trump on May 22, 2025, to keep two Democratic federal labor board members away from their positions while their dismissal challenges proceed – Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board.

On April 8, 2025, the justices blocked a judge’s order requiring the administration to rehire thousands of terminated employees, suspending U.S. Judge William Alsup’s injunction for six federal agencies to reinstate recently hired probationary workers.

SPENDING AND RESEARCH

The court allowed Trump on September 26, 2025, to withhold approximately $4 billion in congressionally authorized foreign aid as part of his “America First” agenda, despite constitutional provisions granting Congress spending authority.

However, on March 5, 2025, the justices refused to let the administration withhold payments to foreign aid organizations for completed work as Trump moves to eliminate American humanitarian projects globally.

The court cleared the way on July 14, 2025, for dismantling the Department of Education, supporting Trump’s effort to reduce federal education involvement in favor of state control. It lifted U.S. District Judge Myong Joun’s order reinstating nearly 1,400 department employees and blocking function transfers to other agencies.

On August 21, 2025, the court permitted extensive cuts to National Institutes of Health grants for research involving racial minorities or LGBT individuals, part of Trump’s campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

The justices allowed the administration on April 4, 2025, to proceed with millions in teacher training grant cuts as part of the diversity initiative crackdown.

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY

On June 6, 2025, the court granted the Department of Government Efficiency extensive access to personal information in Social Security Administration databases for millions of Americans as part of Trump’s federal workforce reduction efforts.

The same day, justices extended their block on judicial orders requiring DOGE to provide records to a government watchdog group seeking operational details.

WASHINGTON — In a surprising move, the Trump administration announced Friday it will maintain stringent requirements forcing most municipalities to eliminate dangerous lead pipes within a decade, continuing to support rigorous water safety regulations established during the Biden presidency.

The Environmental Protection Agency informed a federal appeals court in the nation’s capital that it would uphold the most comprehensive revision of lead-contaminated water regulations in thirty years, despite legal opposition from utility industry groups.

While the current Trump administration has generally pursued rapid elimination of regulations, including loosening restrictions on air and water pollution controls, officials are taking a different stance regarding drinking water safety. On the same day, the administration eliminated strict controls on mercury and other dangerous emissions from coal-fired power plants.

“Following extensive consultation with stakeholders, EPA determined that the sole method to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act’s requirement to prevent expected negative health impacts ‘to the extent feasible’ is to mandate the replacement of lead service lines,” according to the agency’s legal document.

The agency maintained that meeting this goal within ten years is achievable, supporting regulations that were partially based on evidence showing previous approaches using chemical treatments and monitoring to control lead “did not succeed in preventing widespread lead contamination and extensive negative health consequences.”

In August, the EPA indicated its intention to support the previous administration’s comprehensive regulations while also stating it would “create new resources and guidance to provide practical implementation flexibility and regulatory transparency.” This language raised concerns among environmental advocates who feared the agency might introduce exemptions.

Lead, a toxic heavy metal previously widespread in materials including pipes and paint, damages the nervous system and can impair children’s growth, reduce intelligence levels, and elevate blood pressure in adults. When lead pipes deteriorate, they can poison drinking water supplies. The earlier Trump administration’s regulations were less stringent and did not require complete pipe replacement.

The Biden administration completed its lead-contaminated water reforms in 2024. The new rules required utilities to address lead contamination at reduced concentrations, establishing just 10 parts per billion as the action threshold, reduced from the previous 15 parts per billion. When elevated levels were detected, water systems were required to notify customers, implement immediate corrective measures, and work toward replacing lead pipes, which typically represent the primary source of lead contamination in drinking water.

Officials from the Biden administration projected at the time that these enhanced standards would safeguard as many as 900,000 babies from low birth weight and prevent approximately 1,500 early deaths annually from cardiovascular disease.

“Community advocacy and years of lead-poisoned neighborhoods demanding clean tap water have made opposing health protection rules against toxic lead politically untouchable. Perhaps only an inflexible water utility trade organization would dare challenge this fundamental public health protection,” stated Erik Olson, senior director at the Natural Resource Defense Council, an environmental advocacy organization.

The American Water Works Association, representing utility companies, contested the regulations in court, claiming the EPA overstepped its authority by attempting to regulate pipe sections located on private property and therefore cannot mandate water systems to replace them.

The agency responded Friday that utilities can be compelled to replace complete lead pipes because they maintain adequate control over these systems.

The AWWA also argued the ten-year timeline was unrealistic, pointing to difficulties securing adequate workforce for the project and noting that water utilities simultaneously face other major infrastructure demands. Water utilities received three years for preparation before the decade-long replacement period begins, with some cities having extensive lead pipe networks granted additional time.

The agency stated it carefully examined information from numerous water utilities and determined that most could complete lead pipe replacement within ten years or sooner.

The initial lead and copper regulations for drinking water were implemented by the EPA over three decades ago. While these rules substantially decreased lead levels in water, critics argued they allowed cities to respond too slowly when contamination levels increased.

Lead pipes are predominantly located in older, industrial regions of the nation, including metropolitan areas like Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee. The updated regulations also modify how lead concentrations are calculated, potentially substantially increasing the number of communities found in violation.

The EPA under President Donald Trump has emphasized deregulation efforts. Officials have worked to reduce climate change initiatives and encourage fossil fuel development. However, their initial approach to drinking water matters has shown more complexity.

In March, for instance, the EPA revealed plans to partially reverse regulations targeting so-called “forever chemicals” in drinking water — the other significant tap water protection from the Biden era. This modification aimed to maintain strict limits for certain common PFAS while proposing to eliminate and reconsider standards for other varieties and extend implementation timelines.

Both PFAS and lead pipes represent expensive risks to water safety. Some federal funding exists to assist communities with these challenges.

The Biden administration calculated approximately 9 million lead pipes supply water to residential and commercial properties across the United States. The Trump administration revised this analysis and currently estimates roughly 4 million lead pipes exist. Methodological changes, including presuming that communities failing to provide data lack lead pipes, caused this substantial difference. The updated estimate does address questionable results from certain states — advocates noted that the agency’s original projections for Florida, for example, appeared excessively high.

The EPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The AWWA referenced their existing court documents when contacted for a statement.

President Donald Trump lashed out at the Supreme Court following Friday’s decisive 6-3 decision that stripped away his authority to independently impose import tariffs, as he pledged to persist with his worldwide trade conflict that has created global economic tension over the past year.

Dismissing what he characterized as an absurd decision, Trump declared an immediate 10% import tax on goods from every nation, adding to any tariffs already in place. Current law permits him to enforce this tax for 150 days, though legal challenges may emerge.

The Supreme Court’s historic decision eliminated the negotiating power that Trump and his trade representatives have used against foreign nations at diplomatic tables to alter international relationships and worldwide commerce.

The decision initially caused U.S. stock markets to jump before closing with modest gains, as financial experts cautioned about returning market instability while awaiting Trump’s future actions.

The court’s ruling raises doubts about trade agreements that Trump’s representatives have secured in recent months by threatening steep tariffs. The decision leaves uncertain what happens to the $175 billion Trump has gathered from American importers through what the court determined was his misinterpretation of existing law.

“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump stated to White House reporters, arguing that foreign nations were celebrating the decision and “dancing in the street.”

Without providing proof, he suggested that most justices yielded to outside pressure: “They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.”

After returning to office 13 months ago, Trump claimed he possessed what the court described as the “extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope.” Declaring a national emergency, he argued the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) gave him authority to establish tariffs at whatever level he selected.

Chief Justice John Roberts anchored the court’s decision with language from the U.S. Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.”

The Trump administration’s claim that it had identified a war-like crisis to establish a legal exception did not convince the justices.

“The Government thus concedes, as it must, that the President enjoys no inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime,” Roberts stated in his opinion.

“And it does not defend the challenged tariffs as an exercise of the President’s warmaking powers. The United States, after all, is not at war with every nation in the world.”

Even with the court’s clear statement that the president had overstepped his constitutional limits, Trump told reporters: “It’s ridiculous, but it’s OK, because we have other ways, numerous other ways.”

Following twelve months of Trump’s frequently spontaneous tariff declarations that have disrupted markets and the international economy, the ruling and Trump’s reaction have brought back significant uncertainty that economists, investors and government officials hoped was behind them.

“I think it will just bring in a new period of high uncertainty in world trade, as everybody tries to figure out what the U.S. tariff policy will be going forward,” stated Varg Folkman, an analyst with the European Policy Centre think tank.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested the court decision might produce varying outcomes.

“The Supreme Court has taken away the President’s leverage, but in a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconian because they agreed he does have the right to a full embargo,” Bessent explained on Fox News’ “The Will Cain Show.”

“We will get back to the same tariff level for the countries. It will just be in a less direct and slightly more convoluted manner,” he added.

By implementing his new temporary 10% tariff, Trump became the first president to use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits the president to impose tariffs up to 15% for as long as 150 days to address “fundamental international payments problems.” This action may also face legal opposition. These tariffs can only continue beyond that timeframe with Congressional approval.

WASHINGTON – Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy defended the federal government’s decision to temporarily shut down El Paso’s airport last week, telling reporters Friday that the closure was warranted despite swift reversal of the order.

The Federal Aviation Administration had announced plans to keep the Texas airport closed for 10 days, but changed course and reopened it just hours after the initial announcement.

Multiple news organizations, including Reuters, reported that aviation officials made the closure decision due to safety worries related to a military laser system designed to counter drone threats. When questioned about whether his social media comments regarding the situation were inaccurate, Duffy responded: “I use the information that I get.”

The Transportation Secretary indicated his department will provide a briefing to members of Congress next week, addressing lawmakers’ substantial questions about how the airport closure was handled.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump faced a major setback Friday when the Supreme Court dealt a crushing blow to his worldwide tariff program, with six justices ruling against the trade policy that formed a cornerstone of his economic agenda.

The decision sparked an extraordinary public rebuke from Trump, who unleashed harsh criticism against the justices who ruled against him, particularly targeting two of his own Supreme Court nominees.

The ruling challenged Trump’s expansive use of emergency powers for trade policy and tested whether the high court would maintain its independence from presidential pressure.

‘The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for the country,’ Trump declared during a White House briefing room appearance hours after Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion.

While Trump said he anticipated opposition from the court’s three liberal justices, he praised their consistency. ‘But you can’t knock their loyalty,’ he remarked. ‘It’s one thing you can do with some of our people.’

When pressed about Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both Trump nominees who sided with the majority, the president didn’t hold back. ‘I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, if you want to know the truth, the two of them,’ Trump stated.

Vice President JD Vance joined the criticism, though avoiding personal attacks. ‘This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple,’ Vance posted on X. Notably, Vance’s wife Usha previously served as a law clerk for Chief Justice Roberts.

The tariff challenge drew support from across the political spectrum, with the libertarian Liberty Justice Center leading the legal fight alongside business organizations including the Chamber of Commerce.

Trump’s relationship with the Supreme Court has been complicated since his first presidency began in 2017. While he secured a major victory in 2024 with a presidential immunity decision that shielded him from prosecution related to his 2020 election challenges, this latest ruling represents a significant defeat.

During his current term’s early months, Trump had successfully won several emergency appeals that enabled implementation of his immigration enforcement policies and other priority initiatives.

Presidential criticism of Supreme Court decisions spans American history. Thomas Jefferson opposed the landmark Marbury v. Madison ruling that established judicial review powers. Franklin Roosevelt, frustrated by New Deal setbacks, unsuccessfully attempted to expand the court by adding justices.

Barack Obama used his 2010 State of the Union address to criticize the Citizens United decision while justices sat in the audience, prompting Justice Samuel Alito to mouth ‘not true’ in response. Alito hasn’t attended the annual speech since.

However, Trump’s personal attacks crossed traditional boundaries, according to Ed Whelan, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia.

‘It’s entirely fine for a president to criticize a Supreme Court ruling that goes against him. But it’s demagogic for President Trump to contend that the justices who voted against him did so because of lack of courage,’ Whelan explained in an email.

Past presidents have privately expressed disappointment with their appointees’ decisions. Dwight Eisenhower reportedly told associates that selecting Chief Justice Earl Warren following the Brown v. Board of Education ruling was his greatest error, according to biographer Stephen Ambrose.

Theodore Roosevelt allegedly criticized Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for a dissenting opinion, saying he ‘could carve out of a banana a judge with more backbone.’ Holmes was a Civil War veteran wounded in battle.

The key difference is that previous presidential criticisms occurred privately, not during a livestreamed White House briefing.

Trump and Chief Justice Roberts have clashed before, with Roberts issuing two public statements defending federal judges against Trump’s attacks.

While Trump avoided naming Roberts directly Friday, he appeared to target the chief justice when claiming he lost because justices ‘want to be politically correct’ and are ‘catering to a group of people in D.C.’

Trump employed similar rhetoric when criticizing Roberts’ 2012 vote that preserved Obamacare.

The timing mirrors the Citizens United aftermath, as Trump and several justices will likely share the same space Tuesday when the president delivers his State of the Union address to Congress.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once fell asleep during a presidential speech, later blaming California wine for her drowsiness. Tuesday evening, no justice is expected to doze off.

President Donald Trump delivered a scathing 45-minute response Friday following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn his global tariff policies, targeting specific justices with unusually harsh personal criticism.

The high court’s 6-3 decision against the tariffs prompted Trump to express disappointment and shame toward certain members of the nation’s highest judicial body during remarks to reporters at the White House.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing. And I’m ashamed of certain members of the court – absolutely ashamed – for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump stated from the White House briefing room.

The ruling particularly stung Trump because it included votes from two justices he nominated during his first presidency – Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett – who joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberal members in the majority opinion.

Trump’s response marked an extraordinary public attack on the Supreme Court by a sitting president, even as his administration has previously criticized lower court decisions that have blocked his policy initiatives since returning to office in January 2025.

Speaking from behind a lectern in dimly lit conditions, the president questioned the patriotism of some justices and alleged the court “has been swayed by foreign interests,” though he offered no supporting evidence for this claim.

Trump directed especially sharp words at his own appointees Gorsuch and Barrett for their votes against the tariff policy, which he has used as a key tool in foreign relations.

“I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, you wanna know the truth, the two of them,” Trump said, referring to Gorsuch and Barrett.

In contrast, the president offered high praise for Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another of his appointees, who authored the dissenting opinion alongside Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

“I’d like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is, right now, very proud of those justices,” Trump declared. “When you read the dissenting opinions, there’s no way that anyone can argue against them.”

Kavanaugh’s dissent suggested the ruling might not significantly limit presidential tariff authority in the future, noting that the court concluded Trump “checked the wrong statutory box by relying on (an emergency economic powers law) rather than another statute to impose these tariffs.”

The justice wrote that Friday’s decision doesn’t prevent the president “from imposing most if not all of these same sorts of tariffs under other statutory authorities” and that “the court’s decision is not likely to greatly restrict presidential tariff authority going forward.”

Trump repeatedly highlighted Kavanaugh during his remarks, calling his 2018 appointee’s work “genius” and expressing pride in the nomination that survived a contentious Senate confirmation process.

“I would like to thank Justice Kavanaugh for his, frankly, his genius and his great ability,” Trump said. “Very proud of that appointment.”

The president also targeted the court’s liberal wing with harsh criticism, referring to them as “the Democrats on the court.”

“They’re an automatic no, just like in Congress. They’re an automatic no. They’re against anything that makes America strong, healthy and great again,” Trump said. “They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices.”

The Supreme Court, which maintains a 6-3 conservative majority, had generally supported Trump’s broad executive power claims in emergency rulings over the past year, making Friday’s defeat particularly notable for the administration.

The tariff policies were implemented under legislation designed for national emergencies, but the majority found this legal justification insufficient to support the broad trade measures.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared Friday that a recent Supreme Court decision has diminished President Donald Trump’s negotiating power by overturning tariffs that were implemented through emergency authority legislation.

Speaking on Fox News’ “The Will Cain Show,” Bessent explained the court’s impact on the administration’s trade strategy. “The Supreme Court has taken away the President’s leverage, but in a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconian because they agreed he does have the right to a full embargo,” Bessent stated during the interview.

The Treasury Secretary indicated that the administration would find alternative pathways to maintain current tariff levels. “We will get back to the same tariff level for the countries. It will just be in a less direct and slightly more convoluted manner,” he explained.

Following the court’s decision on Friday, Trump responded by declaring his intention to use alternative legal authorities for tariff collection and revealed plans for a comprehensive 10% tariff on imports from all other nations.

Bessent expressed confidence that international partners would maintain their existing trade commitments with the Trump administration from the past year.

The Treasury Secretary emphasized the president’s broader trade enforcement capabilities, stating: “He (Trump) has a right to a complete embargo, he can just cut countries off … or he can cut whole product lines off. We can’t receive any money. So, I would call on all countries to honor their agreements and move forward.”

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal magistrate is deliberating whether to force authorities to give back electronic equipment confiscated from a Washington Post journalist’s Northern Virginia residence during a search last month.

During Friday’s court proceedings, legal representatives for the newspaper contended that federal officials are trampling on First Amendment protections after taking devices from reporter Hannah Natanson’s Alexandria home. U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter had previously approved the FBI search as part of a probe into suspected illegal sharing of classified materials with Natanson by a Pentagon contractor.

Porter declined to make an immediate ruling on the Post’s motion demanding return of the seized equipment, stating he plans to announce his decision prior to a scheduled follow-up session on March 4.

“I have a pretty good sense of what I’m going to do here,” the magistrate said without elaborating.

The investigation centers on Pentagon contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, who was taken into custody January 8 on charges of improperly removing and keeping classified documents. Authorities allege Perez-Lugones brought home printed classified materials from his job and subsequently shared them with Natanson.

During the January 14 search of Natanson’s Alexandria residence, federal agents confiscated a mobile phone, two laptop computers, a recording device, a portable hard drive and a Garmin smartwatch. Porter previously agreed to temporarily prevent the government from examining any content from the reporter’s devices.

Attorney Simon Latcovich, representing the Post, explained that material stored on Natanson’s equipment could reveal hundreds of confidential sources who regularly supplied her with numerous tips daily.

“Since the seizure, those sources have dried up,” he said.

Should Porter decide to conduct a private examination of the device contents before determining what the government can access, Latcovich requested that Post and reporter attorneys be permitted to review the material first to argue for protecting certain information.

Justice Department lawyer Christian Dibblee acknowledged that the government understands Porter didn’t approve a “fishing expedition.”

“The government does take that seriously,” he said.

The newspaper’s legal team accused authorities of breaking legal protections for journalists and violating Natanson’s First Amendment free speech guarantees.

Government prosecutors maintained they have the right to retain the confiscated materials because they contain evidence relevant to an active investigation involving national security concerns.

The situation has attracted nationwide attention and criticism from press freedom organizations who view it as evidence of increased Justice Department aggressiveness in leak investigations targeting journalists.

“There is a pattern here, your honor, that this is a part of,” Latcovich said.

WASHINGTON — First Lady Melania Trump presented her 2025 inaugural ball gown to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History on Friday, calling the experience “incredible” as she watched the dress take its place in the museum’s renowned First Ladies Collection.

This marks the second time the First Lady has contributed an inaugural dress to the museum’s collection, having previously donated her 2017 gown.

During Friday’s ceremony, Trump upheld the time-honored custom of first ladies contributing their inaugural attire to the museum. She presented the sleeveless white dress with black trim along with a black neck accessory featuring a replica Harry Winston diamond brooch that she wore during the January 20, 2025 inauguration festivities. The complete outfit was showcased on a display mannequin during the presentation.

The First Lady offered thoughtful commentary about the dress and its significance, emphasizing her passion for fashion design while noting the garment represents much more than clothing.

“This is more than 50 years of education, experience, and wisdom realized with each thread, each stitch, each sharp edge,” she said. “The meticulously formed black shape ‘Z’ on the front bodice summons decades of my early memories, life experiences, and influences. And, all of these stories are tucked deep within its crisp, strong seams — forever.”

Drawing from her background as a former fashion model, Trump explained that fashion design represents another avenue for artistic expression, noting how the dress’s black and white color scheme “sets a mood rich with emotion.”

“This dress speaks with a distinct point of view, a modern silhouette, bold and dignified, and ruthlessly chic,” she said.

Following the brief ceremony, museum staff transported the mannequin to the upper level where it joined the first ladies’ display, which showcases more than two dozen gowns from previous presidential spouses. Trump, accompanied by Herve Pierre — her long-time fashion consultant who created both of her donated gowns — visited the exhibit to view the dress in its protective display case.

“It’s incredible. It’s a historic moment,” she told reporters when asked about seeing her gown become part of the permanent collection. The museum welcomed visitors back that Friday afternoon.

Commercial truck and bus drivers across the nation will now be mandated to complete their licensing examinations exclusively in English under new federal requirements announced by the Trump administration’s transportation officials.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy revealed the policy change on Friday, emphasizing the need for drivers to possess adequate English skills for reading traffic signage and interacting with police during traffic stops. The state of Florida has already begun implementing English-only testing procedures.

At present, numerous states permit drivers to complete their examinations in alternative languages, despite existing requirements for English language competency. California previously provided testing options in 20 different languages. Duffy noted that several states have contracted external organizations to conduct commercial driving tests, and these third-party entities are failing to uphold proper qualification standards.

“And the third party tester is participating in the scam because they are not adequately testing the people who went through a sham school,” Duffy said.

The Transportation Secretary stressed that Americans expect operators of large commercial vehicles to possess proper qualifications for handling such equipment. Duffy criticized the longstanding neglect of trucking industry problems, stating they were “allowed to rot and no one’s paying attention to it for decades.”

“Once you start to pay attention, you see that all these bad things have been happening. And the consequence of that is that Americans get hurt,” Duffy said. “When we get on the road, we should expect that we should be safe. And that those who drive those 80,000-pound big rigs, that they are well-trained, they’re well-qualified, and they’re going to be safe.”

The comprehensive safety initiative will also target fraudulent trucking operations attempting to enter the industry while maintaining pressure on substandard training facilities and ensuring state compliance with commercial licensing regulations.

This week, the Transportation Department ordered the closure of 557 driver training facilities for failing to satisfy fundamental safety requirements. The agency has intensified enforcement actions against states issuing commercial licenses to immigrants lacking proper qualifications, particularly following a deadly August collision.

According to Duffy, an unauthorized truck operator performed an illegal U-turn in Florida, triggering a fatal accident that claimed three lives. Additional deadly incidents, including a recent Indiana crash that killed four people this month, have amplified safety concerns.

Federal officials plan to strengthen trucking company registration procedures and requirements while increasing Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration inspection frequency at truck stops and driving schools.

Under current regulations, companies need only pay several hundred dollars and provide insurance documentation to obtain operating permits, with audits potentially delayed for a year or longer.

This lenient system has enabled fraudulent operators, dubbed “chameleon carriers” within the industry, to register repeatedly using different business names and simply change identities to evade accountability following accidents or violations.

Authorities are also working to verify the accuracy of electronic logging equipment used by drivers and confirm that states are properly enforcing commercial licensing requirements.

Following the Indiana collision, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration suspended the employing company and revoked operating numbers for two affiliated businesses connected to AJ Partners. Chicago-area companies Tutash Express and Sam Express were also disqualified, while the Aydana driving school attended by the crash-involved driver lost its certification.

Immigration officials detained the driver, a 30-year-old from Kyrgyzstan who allegedly entered the United States illegally. Investigators report he attempted to pass a slower vehicle ahead of him when his truck collided with an approaching van.

In December, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration moved to revoke certification for up to 7,500 of the nation’s 16,000 driving schools, though many of those facilities were already inactive.

Duffy revealed that the companies involved in the Indiana crash were all registered to the same apartment address. In other instances, hundreds of these chameleon operations may share a single registration address.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump suffered a significant setback to his trade agenda Friday when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his use of emergency authority to implement extensive import taxes across the globe.

The high court’s 6-3 decision determined that Trump’s reliance on emergency powers legislation to establish these trade levies was unconstitutional.

Notably, two of the three justices Trump nominated to the court sided with the majority against this major component of his second-term economic strategy.

Trump had invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, known as IEEPA, to justify his widespread tariff program, despite the law making no reference to trade duties. The legislation, originally designed to allow presidents to freeze assets and halt financial transactions during national crises, was first implemented during the Iranian hostage situation. Since then, it has been applied to various international conflicts, including responses to September 11th and the conflict in Syria.

The president argued that America’s trade imbalance constituted a national emergency serious enough to warrant such measures, but the Supreme Court rejected this reasoning.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated: “The fact that no President has ever found such power in IEEPA is strong evidence that it does not exist.”

The court’s opinion emphasized that the Constitution “very clearly” assigns Congress, rather than the executive branch, the authority to establish taxes, including import duties.

Three justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh — opposed the majority ruling.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote in dissent: “The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful.”

In early 2024, Trump used IEEPA to establish tariffs on the nation’s top three trade partners: Mexico, Canada, and China. He justified these measures by declaring a national emergency related to illegal border crossings and fentanyl trafficking.

Later, in April during what Trump called “Liberation Day,” he implemented “reciprocal” import taxes reaching 50% on products from numerous nations, plus a standard 10% levy on nearly all other countries, again citing IEEPA authority.

Trump also applied IEEPA to establish significant import duties on Brazilian products, pointing to that nation’s legal action against former President Jair Bolsonaro, and on Indian goods, citing India’s Russian oil purchases.

These IEEPA-based tariffs have experienced frequent changes over the past year, with rates being removed, increased, and reinstated multiple times.

Although the Supreme Court’s ruling eliminates many of these import taxes, other Trump tariffs based on different legal foundations remain in place.

The majority of America’s trade partners continue to face substantial duties on particular industries, including steel, aluminum, automobiles, copper, lumber, kitchen cabinetry, bathroom fixtures, and upholstered goods.

The White House has not yet issued a statement regarding the court’s decision, but tariff opponents are celebrating the outcome.

We Pay the Tariffs, representing small businesses that challenged the import taxes, described the ruling as a “tremendous victory” for companies harmed by the levies.

Group leader Dan Anthony stated: “They’ve taken out loans just to keep their doors open. They’ve frozen hiring, canceled expansion plans, and watched their life savings drain away to pay tariff bills that weren’t in any budget or business plan. Today, the Supreme Court has validated what we’ve been saying all along: These tariffs were unlawful from the start.”

Government records indicate the Treasury Department has gathered over $133 billion from these emergency-power-based import taxes through December.

However, the Supreme Court did not determine whether businesses and individuals who paid these tariffs could receive refunds. Several companies, including warehouse retailer Costco, have already filed lawsuits in lower courts seeking reimbursement.

Justice Kavanaugh, in his dissenting opinion, warned the refund process could prove challenging.

“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” Kavanaugh wrote.

WASHINGTON — Federal environmental officials announced Friday they are rolling back tougher mercury pollution standards for coal-burning power plants, marking another step in the Trump administration’s push to support fossil fuel operations by reducing environmental regulations.

Mercury and other dangerous pollutants released by coal and oil power facilities can damage children’s developing brains and increase risks of heart problems and other health issues in adults. These same facilities also produce significant greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. EPA officials made their announcement at a large coal facility along the Ohio River in Louisville, Kentucky.

“The Trump EPA’s action follows the rule of law and will reduce of cost of generating baseload power, lowering costs and improving reliability for consumers,” EPA Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi said in a statement. Agency officials estimate the regulatory change will save hundreds of millions of dollars.

The new regulation brings back industry standards originally put in place during 2012 under the Obama administration, which successfully cut mercury pollution by almost 90%. The Biden administration had worked to strengthen those requirements even more after Trump’s first term had attempted to weaken them.

Power plants that burn coal represent the biggest single source of mercury contamination caused by human activity. These facilities discharge mercury into the air, which later comes down through rainfall or settles naturally, contaminating the food supply through fish and other consumable products.

Conservation organizations maintain that stronger pollution controls have protected lives and improved health outcomes for communities located near coal power facilities. However, industry representatives have argued that stricter emission requirements, combined with other coal plant regulations, have made operations financially unsustainable.

Industry leaders have criticized the Biden administration for implementing excessive regulatory requirements that would force widespread plant closures.

“The reliability of the electric grid is in a better place because of the administration’s swift repeal of this rule. As crafted, the rule would have dealt a crippling blow to power plants that are essential to maintaining grid reliability,” said Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

The coal sector’s prospects have shifted significantly over the past twelve months.

During March, EPA officials touted what they called the “biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history,” revealing plans to eliminate numerous environmental safeguards. The Biden administration’s climate change priorities were ending — EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described the moves as “the death of the ‘green new scam.’” Fossil fuel regulations became primary targets, including major initiatives to cut carbon pollution from coal facilities and require greenhouse gas disclosure. The current Trump administration has also given additional time for many coal plants to meet certain Clean Air Act requirements.

In addition to reducing environmental oversight, the Trump administration has issued emergency directives preventing the planned closure of multiple coal facilities. Government officials argue these plants provide steady electricity during severe weather or other high-demand periods. Eliminating coal would compromise grid dependability, particularly as new data centers create unprecedented electricity demands, according to officials. They have rejected concerns about increased consumer costs from maintaining coal operations, their substantial emissions, and their major role in climate change.

Earlier this month, EPA officials also withdrew a determination that climate change poses public health risks, which has historically justified federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, President Donald Trump met with coal miners who praised him as the “Undisputed Champion of Beautiful, Clean Coal.”

Environmental advocates argue that supporting coal makes no economic sense when renewable energy sources are cleaner, more affordable, and dependable.

Gina McCarthy, who led EPA during Barack Obama’s presidency, said the Trump administration will be known for prioritizing the coal industry over public health.

“By weakening pollution limits and monitoring for brain-damaging mercury and other pollutants, they are actively spiking any attempt to make America – and our children – healthy,” said McCarthy, who also chairs the climate advocacy organization America Is All In.

President Donald Trump has scheduled a diplomatic visit to China spanning March 31 through April 2, where he will engage in crucial discussions with Chinese President Xi Jinping amid shifting trade dynamics between the two economic superpowers.

The White House confirmed Trump’s upcoming journey on Friday, coinciding with a Supreme Court ruling that dismantled numerous tariffs the president had implemented on imported products as part of his approach to managing U.S.-China relations.

During his stay, Trump plans to visit Beijing for what’s described as an elaborate, multi-day diplomatic engagement with the Chinese leader. This marks Trump’s return to China since his 2017 visit, making him the most recent American president to travel there.

Originally, discussions were centered on extending an existing trade agreement that prevented both nations from imposing additional tariffs. However, following Friday’s court decision, questions remain about Trump’s legal options for reinstating import duties on Chinese goods.

The Trump administration has defended these trade measures as essential responses to national security concerns stemming from trade deficits and China’s involvement in manufacturing chemicals used to produce illegal fentanyl.

Speaking to visiting foreign dignitaries on Thursday, Trump described the upcoming trip enthusiastically. “That’s going to be a wild one,” Trump remarked. “We have to put on the biggest display you’ve ever had in the history of China.”

Chinese embassy representatives in Washington have not yet responded to inquiries about the visit, and Beijing has not officially acknowledged the planned meeting.

This diplomatic encounter represents the first face-to-face meeting between the leaders since their October discussion in South Korea and their first direct communication since February. During their previous October summit, Trump agreed to reduce certain Chinese tariffs in return for Beijing’s commitment to combat fentanyl trafficking, restart American soybean imports, and maintain rare earth mineral exports.

While the October negotiations largely avoided the contentious Taiwan issue, Xi brought up American arms sales to the island during their February conversation.

The United States announced its most substantial weapons deal with Taiwan in December, involving $11.1 billion worth of defensive equipment potentially useful against Chinese military action. Taiwan anticipates additional such agreements.

Beijing considers Taiwan part of Chinese territory, a claim Taiwan’s government disputes. While America maintains official diplomatic relations with China, it sustains informal connections with Taiwan and serves as the island’s primary weapons provider. U.S. law requires providing Taiwan with necessary self-defense capabilities.

According to Trump, Xi indicated during their February discussion that he might consider expanding soybean purchases further. American farmers, who represent a significant political base for Trump, have faced economic challenges, while China remains the world’s largest soybean market.

Despite Trump’s justification of aggressive policies toward various regions including Canada, Greenland, and Venezuela as measures to counter Chinese influence, he has recently moderated his stance toward Beijing in several key sectors, including tariffs, advanced semiconductors, and drone technology.

WASHINGTON – Supporters of the Make America Healthy Again movement who helped propel President Donald Trump back to the White House are now threatening to abandon him over a controversial executive order signed this week.

The order, which invokes the Defense Production Act to increase domestic manufacturing of glyphosate – a widely-used herbicide – has sparked outrage among MAHA followers who view the chemical as a public health threat.

These same activists were instrumental in Trump’s 2024 victory and have seen some of their priorities implemented during his second term, including cuts to recommended childhood vaccination schedules and promotion of whole food diets in federal nutrition guidelines.

However, Wednesday’s executive order has created a rift between the administration and its health-conscious supporters, who see it as betraying their core mission to reduce exposure to potentially harmful chemicals.

“I don’t feel like there’s much hope after this executive order in preserving the MAHA vote,” stated Kelly Ryerson, who serves as co-executive director of American Regeneration and has been vocal in opposing glyphosate use.

The presidential directive describes glyphosate as “crucial to the national security and defense, including food-supply security.”

The White House has not yet provided a response to requests for comment regarding the backlash.

The timing of Trump’s order coincides with Bayer’s announcement of a massive $7.25 billion settlement proposal to resolve tens of thousands of legal claims alleging their Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. Bayer remains the sole U.S. manufacturer of glyphosate and had previously warned they might cease domestic production without regulatory protection from ongoing litigation.

Currently, America relies heavily on Chinese imports to meet glyphosate demand, a dependency the executive order aims to reduce.

While Bayer continues to defend glyphosate’s safety profile, scientific studies present conflicting evidence, with some research suggesting potential links to cancer and endocrine system disruption.

Dave Murphy, who leads United We Eat and previously managed finances for Kennedy’s presidential campaign, characterized the executive order as a “strategic mistake” that could hurt Republicans politically.

“Trump would not be in the White House this second time without those followers, and we expect him to live up to his word,” Murphy emphasized.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., despite his long history of criticizing glyphosate and previously calling it “one of the likely culprits in America’s chronic disease epidemic” on social media, defended the order as essential for national security.

“When hostile actors control critical inputs, they weaken our security,” Kennedy explained in his statement, though he didn’t identify specific countries. “By expanding domestic production, we close that gap and protect American families.”

The controversy comes at a politically sensitive time, with November’s midterm elections approaching. Republicans currently hold narrow control of both the House and Senate, but all House seats and one-third of Senate positions will face voters this fall.

Trump already faces potential electoral challenges from his immigration policies and persistent concerns about high living costs. Historical patterns show sitting presidents typically lose House seats during midterm elections, with the last exception being George W. Bush in 2006.

MAHA activists have taken to social media platforms to express their frustration, sharing posts and images declaring “we do not consent to being poisoned.”

Moms Across America, led by Zen Honeycutt who has close ties to Kennedy, has launched a petition drive urging Trump to reverse his decision.

“True national security is healthy families and the ability of the next generation to reproduce and thrive, which will not happen for as long as these pervasive, harmful herbicides are being used,” the petition argues.

While estimates of MAHA’s voter strength vary significantly, the movement represented a substantial portion of Kennedy’s support base during his presidential campaign before he withdrew and endorsed Trump.

Primary elections are already taking place in some areas, but a nationwide fight over congressional district maps continues to unfold as the November midterm elections approach.

Congressional district boundaries remain up in the air in Missouri, New York, Utah and Virginia. Meanwhile, governors in Florida and Maryland are pressuring their state legislatures to redraw House districts. These efforts add to redistricting changes that have already been implemented in California, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas.

While congressional maps are normally redrawn every ten years following the census, former President Donald Trump sparked an uncommon mid-decade redistricting effort last summer when he encouraged Texas Republicans to alter House districts to benefit the GOP in the midterms. Democratic leaders in California responded in kind, setting off a nationwide redistricting battle.

Republicans estimate they could secure nine extra seats in states where they’ve successfully redrawn congressional maps, while Democrats project they might pick up six seats in other areas due to redistricting efforts. However, these projections depend on historical voting trends continuing through November. That outcome remains questionable, particularly since the party holding power usually loses congressional seats during midterm elections and Trump’s poll numbers show negative approval ratings.

Democrats only need to pick up a handful of seats in November to take House control away from Republicans, which would enable them to block Trump’s legislative priorities.

Missouri
Current map: two Democrats, six Republicans
New map: Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe approved a revised House map last fall that could help Republicans secure one more seat.
Challenges: Opposition groups filed petition signatures in December attempting to force a statewide vote on the map. The Republican secretary of state has until August to verify the petition’s legality and signature count. Multiple lawsuits are also challenging the new districts’ legality.

Maryland
Current map: seven Democrats, one Republican
Proposed map: The Democratic-controlled state House approved a redistricting plan supported by Democratic Gov. Wes Moore that could help Democrats gain another seat.
Challenges: The Democratic state Senate president stated his chamber won’t proceed with redistricting due to worries it might hurt Democrats.

New York
Current map: 19 Democrats, seven Republicans
Proposed map: A judge ordered a state commission in January to redraw boundaries for New York City’s only Republican-held congressional district, ruling it unconstitutionally weakens Black and Hispanic voters’ influence.
Challenges: Republicans lost their state court appeal but have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

Utah
Current map: no Democrats, four Republicans
New map: A judge imposed revised House districts in November that could help Democrats win a seat. The court determined lawmakers had bypassed anti-gerrymandering rules approved by voters when creating the previous map.
Challenges: Republicans are fighting the court-ordered map in both the state Supreme Court and federal court.

Florida
Current map: eight Democrats, 20 Republicans
Proposed map: Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis announced he will convene a special legislative session in April focusing on congressional redistricting.
Challenges: A lawsuit claims DeSantis lacks legal authority to call the special session. The state constitution prohibits drawing districts intended to help or hurt a political party or incumbent.

Texas
Current map: 13 Democrats, 25 Republicans
New map: Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed revised House districts into law last August that could help Republicans gain five more seats.
Challenges: The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way in December for the new districts to be used in this year’s elections. It suspended a lower-court decision that had blocked the new map for being “racially gerrymandered.”

California
Current map: 43 Democrats, nine Republicans
New map: Voters approved revised House districts in November drawn by the Democratic-controlled Legislature that could help Democrats win five additional seats.
Challenges: The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the new districts to be used in this year’s elections in February. It rejected an appeal from Republicans and the Department of Justice, who argued the districts improperly favor Hispanic voters.

North Carolina
Current map: four Democrats, 10 Republicans
New map: The Republican-controlled General Assembly gave final approval in October to revised districts that could help Republicans gain another seat.
Challenges: A federal court panel denied a request in November to prevent the revised districts from being used in the midterm elections.

Ohio
Current map: five Democrats, 10 Republicans
New map: A bipartisan panel with a Republican majority approved revised House districts in October that improve Republicans’ odds of winning two more seats.
Challenges: None. The state constitution mandated new districts before the 2026 election. Since Republicans had passed the previous maps without adequate Democratic support, they were set to expire after the 2024 election.

RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia’s Democratic-controlled legislature approved new congressional district boundaries on Friday, strategically designed to help their party secure four additional U.S. House seats in the ongoing national redistricting fight. While the move demonstrates state Democrats’ legislative strength, significant obstacles stand between them and implementing more favorable district lines for this year’s midterm contests.

A judge in Tazewell, located in conservative Southwest Virginia, has temporarily halted a planned April 21 voter referendum on the redistrict maps by issuing a restraining order on Thursday.

Democratic leaders are challenging both this decision and an earlier ruling from the same judge, who determined last month that Democrats unlawfully expedited the planned public vote on their constitutional amendment enabling the redistricting effort. Virginia’s Supreme Court has accepted the party’s appeal of the initial decision.

Should Democrats succeed in holding their referendum, citizens would decide whether to temporarily implement new congressional boundaries before reverting to Virginia’s standard redistricting procedures following the 2030 census. Democratic officials sought to release the new map prior to the April election.

Former President Donald Trump initiated an uncommon mid-decade redistricting fight last year by urging Republican leaders in Texas to redraw their districts to boost GOP representation. The strategy aimed to help Republicans maintain their slim House majority despite political challenges that typically benefit the opposition party during midterm cycles.

This action sparked a nationwide redistricting competition. Currently, Republicans anticipate gaining nine additional House seats across Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Democrats project winning six more seats in California and Utah, while hoping to offset the remaining three-seat difference in Virginia.

Virginia Democratic lawmakers have characterized their redistricting efforts as a necessary response to Trump’s actions.

“The president of the United States, who apparently only one half of this chamber knows how to stand up to, basically directed states to grab power,” stated Virginia’s Democratic Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell in February. “To basically maintain his power indefinitely — to rig the game, rig the system.”

Republican officials have expressed outrage at the proposal. House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore characterized the redistricting as an attempt by liberals from northern Virginia’s Arlington, Fairfax and Prince William counties to control the entire state.

“In southwest Virginia, we have this saying … They say, ‘Terry, you do a good job up there, but you know, Virginia stops at Roanoke,’” Kilgore explained, referencing how residents across Virginia’s Appalachian region feel underrepresented in state government. “That’s not going to be the same saying anymore, because Virginia is now going to stop just a little bit west of Prince William County.”

Virginia currently sends six Democrats and five Republicans to the U.S. House, representing districts established by a court after a bipartisan legislative commission couldn’t reach agreement on boundaries following the 2020 census.

The legislation implementing Democrats’ more partisan map, contingent on voter approval, now awaits the signature of Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who has signaled her support.

“Virginia has the opportunity and responsibility to be responsive in the face of efforts across the country to change maps,” Spanberger declared while endorsing the referendum.

Democratic hopefuls are already positioning themselves for potential opportunities. “Dopesick” author Beth Macy and former U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello have announced campaigns in traditionally Republican areas that would shift into districts with higher Democratic registration.

Virginia Del. Dan Helmer and former federal prosecutor J.P. Cooney, who participated in Trump investigations before being dismissed by him, have launched campaigns in a previously rural district that would now primarily encompass voters near the nation’s capital. Additionally, former Democratic congresswoman Elaine Luria is attempting a comeback against Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans, who defeated her in 2022, in a competitive district the new map would make slightly more Democratic-friendly.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt a major setback to President Donald Trump’s trade strategy Friday, issuing an uncommon rebuke by determining he overstepped his authority in declaring an economic emergency to impose extensive import taxes.

Trade tariffs have become the cornerstone of Trump’s economic message to voters ahead of the midterm elections, with the president once calling tariffs his “favorite word in the dictionary.” He pledged that manufacturing plants would return from abroad bringing employment opportunities, while cautioning that eliminating tariffs might trigger a severe economic downturn.

However, Friday’s Supreme Court decision will likely extend political and economic uncertainty surrounding international commerce throughout the election cycle.

According to two individuals familiar with the president’s response who requested anonymity, Trump labeled the ruling “a disgrace” when he received word of the Supreme Court’s decision during a private gathering with multiple governors. A third person briefed on the discussion revealed that Trump stated he has “to do something about these courts.”

The governors’ meeting concluded shortly after Trump was informed of the ruling.

The president is anticipated to make public remarks about the decision during an afternoon news conference.

Republican political consultant Doug Heye noted it was immediately apparent that the president “is not going to be happy” regarding the decision.

“We’re starting to hear about how this is a massive blow, a massive repudiation,” he stated.

Nevertheless, Heye indicated Trump would likely seek alternative methods to advance his trade policies.

“Are they going to be able to figure out how to use this as an opportunity or not?” he questioned. “There are too many questions.”

The administration intends to utilize different legal authorities to maintain his tariff program, though these approaches will only extend the controversy and sustain an issue that remains largely unpopular among voters.

Approximately 60% of Americans believed Trump had overreached in implementing new tariffs on foreign nations, based on an AP-NORC survey from January.

Even more concerning for a president who campaigned on addressing Americans’ affordability worries, 76% indicated in an April poll that Trump’s tariff strategies would raise consumer prices domestically.

Trump’s assertive tariff implementation had created discomfort among numerous Republican legislators, both publicly and privately, compelling them to justify what amounted to tax hikes on American citizens and enterprises.

Throughout Trump’s second presidential term, no fewer than seven GOP senators have expressed their objections. This month, six House Republicans aligned with Democrats to support a measure opposing Trump’s tariffs on Canada.

Free trade had historically represented a fundamental principle of the Republican Party prior to Trump’s political emergence.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, who served during Trump’s initial term, celebrated the Supreme Court decision as a win for citizens, constitutional separation of powers, and free trade principles.

“American families and American businesses pay American tariffs — not foreign countries,” Pence posted on social media. “With this decision, American families and businesses can breathe a sigh of relief.”

Democrats quickly capitalized on the opportunity presented by the Supreme Court, with Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., declaring that Trump “is not a king” and his “tariffs were always illegal.”

“Republicans in Congress could have easily ended this economic crisis by standing up for their communities,” stated DelBene, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Instead, they chose to bend the knee to Trump while families, small businesses, and farmers suffered from higher prices.”

The decision effectively enables Trump’s opponents to argue he violated the law while middle-class families bore the consequences.

Yet Trump has maintained that his tariffs prevented national economic collapse, a message he delivered Thursday evening to voters in the battleground state of Georgia.

During Thursday’s address at Coosa Steel, a Georgia steel manufacturer, the president mentioned “tariff” 28 times, with the company attributing the import taxes to making their products more competitive against Chinese goods.

“Without tariffs, this country would be in such trouble right now,” Trump declared.

Trump also expressed frustration about having to defend his tariff authority before the Supreme Court.

“I have to wait for this decision. I’ve been waiting forever, forever, and the language is clear that I have the right to do it as president,” he said. “I have the right to put tariffs on for national security purposes, countries that have been ripping us off for years.” The high court disagreed by a 6-3 margin.

The president has repeatedly provided misleading information about his tariffs, asserting contrary to evidence that foreign governments would bear the cost and that the revenue would be adequate to reduce the national debt and provide taxpayer dividends.

Fresh analysis from a major American bank released Thursday showed that tariff payments by medium-sized U.S. companies increased threefold during the past year.

The additional tax burden has forced companies employing a total of 48 million Americans — the type of businesses Trump promised to strengthen — to manage the new costs by raising customer prices, reducing their workforce, or accepting diminished profits.

Trump’s tariffs — not entirely eliminated by the ruling — were projected to produce $3 trillion in revenue over a decade, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. While substantial, this amount would fall short of covering anticipated deficit spending.

The Supreme Court has not addressed how any potential refund mechanism would operate.

In a significant 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court has determined that presidents lack the authority to impose tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The high court ruled that because tariffs function as taxes, the Constitution reserves this power exclusively for Congress.

The justices emphasized that the Constitution grants Congress sole authority to “lay and collect taxes and duties,” effectively blocking presidents from using emergency economic legislation to establish trade barriers. This ruling represents a major limitation on executive branch powers in international trade matters.

Agricultural organizations across the country are responding to the decision, which could significantly impact how future trade disputes are handled and resolved.

WASHINGTON — Despite the Supreme Court’s rejection of President Trump’s global tariff program, the administration maintains several pathways to continue imposing aggressive import taxes on foreign goods.

The high court rejected Trump’s broad assertions of emergency authority to levy tariffs on virtually every nation worldwide. However, the president can still utilize tariff mechanisms from his previous administration and tap into additional powers, including legislation dating to the Great Depression era.

“It’s hard to see any pathway here where tariffs end,” Georgetown trade law professor Kathleen Claussen explained. “I am pretty convinced he could rebuild the tariff landscape he has now using other authorities.”

Trump had asserted extensive authority to impose tariffs through the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. However, challengers successfully argued to the Supreme Court that such emergency powers were unnecessary since Congress had already provided the executive branch with tariff authority through multiple other laws, albeit with specific limitations on presidential use.

Import taxes have served as a fundamental element of Trump’s international and economic strategy during his second presidency, featuring substantial “reciprocal” tariffs on most nations. The administration has defended these measures by declaring America’s persistent trade deficits a national emergency.

Yale University’s Budget Lab calculations show average U.S. tariff rates have surged from 2.5% when Trump resumed office in January to approximately 17% one year later — the steepest level since 1934.

The president implemented these measures unilaterally, despite the Constitution explicitly granting taxation and tariff powers to Congress.

One powerful tool available to the United States targets countries accused of “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” trade practices through Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Trump utilized this authority extensively during his first term, particularly targeting China. He invoked Section 301 to implement comprehensive tariffs on Chinese goods amid disputes over Beijing’s aggressive tactics to challenge American technological leadership. The U.S. continues employing these powers to address what officials characterize as unfair Chinese shipbuilding industry practices.

Section 301 tariffs face no size restrictions and last four years with possible extensions. However, the trade representative must complete an investigation and typically conduct public hearings before implementation.

While experts consider Section 301 effective against China, it presents challenges when addressing smaller nations that Trump targeted with reciprocal tariffs.

“Undertaking dozens and dozens of 301 investigations of all of those countries is a laborious process,” noted trade expert Veroneau.

When the U.S. Court of International Trade invalidated Trump’s reciprocal tariffs in May, judges determined the president couldn’t invoke emergency powers to address trade deficits.

This ruling partly reflected Congress’s specific grant of limited authority to address trade imbalances through Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision permits presidential imposition of tariffs up to 15% for maximum 150 days responding to unbalanced trade, without requiring preliminary investigations.

However, Section 122 authority has never been implemented for tariff purposes, creating uncertainty about its practical application.

Throughout both terms, Trump has aggressively exercised Section 232 authority from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose tariffs on imports deemed national security threats.

In 2018, he implemented tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, expanding these measures since returning to office. He also applied Section 232 tariffs to automobiles, auto parts, copper, and lumber.

Last September, the president extended Section 232 tariffs to kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities, and upholstered furniture.

While Section 232 tariffs lack legal limitations, they require Commerce Department investigations. Since the administration conducts its own investigations — similar to Section 301 cases — “they have a lot of control over the outcome,” Veroneau observed.

Nearly a century ago, during the collapse of U.S. and global economies, Congress enacted the Tariff Act of 1930, imposing substantial import taxes. These Smoot-Hawley tariffs, named for their congressional sponsors, have faced widespread criticism from economists and historians for restricting international commerce and worsening the Great Depression. They also received memorable recognition in the 1986 film “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.”

Section 338 of this legislation authorizes presidential imposition of tariffs up to 50% on imports from countries discriminating against U.S. businesses. No investigation is necessary, and no time limits exist for these tariffs.

These tariffs have never been implemented — U.S. trade negotiators historically preferred Section 301 sanctions — though the United States employed their threat as leverage during 1930s trade negotiations.

Last September, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent informed Reuters that the administration was evaluating Section 338 as an alternative if the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s emergency powers tariff approach.

The Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda Friday, voting 6-3 to eliminate some of his broadest import taxes after determining he exceeded presidential authority by using emergency legislation to justify widespread tariffs affecting nearly every nation globally.

While Trump has implemented numerous trade levies throughout the past year, Friday’s court decision leaves many industry-specific taxes intact, giving the president continued options for aggressive import taxation. However, the ruling eliminates a fundamental group of tariffs Trump established through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, known as IEEPA.

The IEEPA legislation gives presidents broad authority to control international commerce following national emergency declarations. While previous administrations have utilized this statute repeatedly over decades, typically for implementing sanctions against foreign nations, Trump became the first president to apply it for tariff implementation.

Using IEEPA authority, Trump established import duties affecting virtually every global trading partner last spring. On what he termed Liberation Day, April 2nd, he implemented “reciprocal” trade taxes reaching 50% on products from numerous nations, plus a standard 10% levy on most other countries.

The baseline 10% duty began in early April, while Liberation Day’s higher rates faced multiple delays and revisions over several months, with most taking effect August 7th. Trump justified these emergency tariffs by citing America’s persistent trade deficit with other nations, though countries maintaining trade surpluses with the U.S. also faced taxation.

Liberation Day tariffs affected key trading partners including South Korea, Japan and the European Union, which collectively ship electronics, automobiles, auto components and pharmaceuticals to American markets. Following negotiations, Trump’s rates on most EU, Japanese and South Korean goods reached 15% before Friday’s ruling. However, Trump recently threatened 25% increases on certain South Korean products, and nations worldwide continue facing sector-specific tariffs not covered by IEEPA.

Early in his second presidential term, Trump applied IEEPA to establish new tariffs targeting America’s three largest trading partners: Mexico, Canada and China.

Trump justified these levies by declaring a national emergency regarding illegal immigration and trafficking of fentanyl and related chemicals. Initially announced in February 2025, these “trafficking tariffs” were implemented gradually with periodic delays, reductions or increases through ongoing retaliation.

Before Friday’s Supreme Court decision, trafficking-related tariffs stood at 35% for Canadian imports and 25% for Mexican goods not meeting 2020 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement requirements. China faced a 10% fentanyl-related levy, reduced from 20% imposed earlier. Chinese products also experienced extremely high Liberation Day rates, though these decreased during trade negotiations.

Leading U.S. imports from China encompass mobile devices, electronics, apparel, toys and home appliances. Canada and Mexico serve as major automotive and auto parts suppliers, with Canada providing America’s largest crude oil supply and Mexico exporting significant fresh produce, beverages and other goods.

Trump additionally used IEEPA to impose substantial import taxes on Brazilian products during summer months, citing Brazil’s policies and criminal prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro.

Brazil already faced Trump’s 10% baseline Liberation Day rate. Bolsonaro-related duties added 40%, creating total levies of 50% on many Brazilian products before Friday’s ruling.

Despite America maintaining consistent trade surpluses with Brazil over recent years, the country’s primary exports include manufactured goods, crude oil and agricultural commodities like soybeans and sugar.

India has also confronted additional IEEPA tariffs. Following Liberation Day, Trump imposed 25% levies on Indian imports, later adding another 25% related to India’s Russian oil purchases while citing emergency powers legislation, totaling 50%.

Earlier this month, the U.S. and India reached a trade framework agreement. Trump announced Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to cease Russian oil purchases, with plans to reduce U.S. tariffs on the ally to 18%. India committed to “eliminate or reduce tariffs” on all American industrial products and various agricultural goods.

India’s top U.S. exports include pharmaceuticals, precious stones, clothing and textiles.

Although the Supreme Court eliminated Trump’s sweeping IEEPA-based import taxes, most American trading partners continue facing steep sector-specific tariffs.

Citing national security concerns, Trump has utilized separate legislation – Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act – to implement new levies on steel, aluminum, automobiles, copper and lumber globally. He began rolling out additional Section 232 tariffs in September targeting kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities and upholstered furniture.

Under pressure to address rising consumer prices, Trump has recently rolled back certain tariffs. Beyond trade frameworks, this includes adding specific levy exemptions and eliminating import taxes on coffee, tropical fruits and beef.

Nevertheless, Trump continues threatening that additional sector-specific levies are forthcoming.

In a devastating blow to President Trump’s economic strategy, the nation’s highest court ruled Friday that his extensive worldwide tariffs violate constitutional law, delivering a 6-3 verdict against the administration.

The ruling focused on trade penalties Trump implemented using emergency authority, including his broad “reciprocal” duties affecting virtually all trading partners globally.

This marks the first substantial element of Trump’s comprehensive policy platform to face direct scrutiny from the Supreme Court, an institution he influenced through appointing three conservative judges during his initial presidency.

The court’s majority determined the Constitution “very clearly” assigns Congress authority over taxation powers, including trade duties. Chief Justice John Roberts stated in his opinion: “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch.”

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued: “The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful.”

International reactions came swiftly, with British officials expressing confidence their favorable trade relationship with America will persist despite the court’s decision.

The United Kingdom had received preferential treatment with only 10% reciprocal duties from Washington, along with special exemptions for their automotive and steel sectors.

A British government representative stated: “The U.K. enjoys the lowest reciprocal tariffs globally, and under any scenario we expect our privileged trading position with the U.S. to continue. We will work with the Administration to understand how the ruling will affect tariffs for the U.K. and the rest of the world.”

According to an anonymous source with direct access to the president’s response, Trump called the Supreme Court ruling “a disgrace” upon learning of the decision during his morning session with multiple state governors.

The president was conducting a private meeting with nearly two dozen governors from both political parties when news of the verdict broke.

Trade expert Wendy Cutler, formerly a U.S. trade negotiator and currently vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, noted that international partners understood the legal risks Trump faced when using emergency provisions for tariff implementation.

“Nevertheless, they chose to conclude deals with Washington, convinced that other statutes would be utilized to keep the tariffs in place,” Cutler explained. “They are waiting to see the Administration’s Plan B. Walking away from the deals announced in recent months does not seem to be in the cards.”

The Trump administration recently finalized trade agreements with Taiwan and Indonesia this month.

Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal told The Associated Press the outcome exceeded expectations: “The decision today is everything we asked the Supreme Court to do. It is a complete and total victory for the challenge to President Trump’s tariffs. It’s a reaffirmation of our deepest constitutional values and the idea that Congress, not any one man, controls the power to tax the American people.”

Canadian Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Candace Laing cautioned that legal victory doesn’t guarantee policy changes, stating: “The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the use of IEEPA tariff powers is a legal ruling, not a reset of U.S. trade policy. This is certainly not the last chapter of this never-ending story. Canada should prepare for new, blunter mechanisms to be used to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects.”

Cornell University economist Eswar Prasad predicted procedural complications ahead while doubting fundamental policy shifts. “The ruling sharply constrains the Trump administration’s aggressive use of tariffs without Congressional approval. Still, it is unlikely to deter the administration from pursuing other avenues to impose tariffs,” he observed, noting the administration’s stated readiness to reimpose similar duties through alternative methods.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer celebrated the decision in a statement, declaring it will “finally give families and small businesses the relief they deserve” and urged Trump to end “this reckless trade war for good.”

Schumer emphasized the president’s “overreach failed,” adding: “We’ve said from day one: a president cannot ignore Congress and unilaterally slap tariffs on Americans.”

Analysts warn that some form of trade duties will likely remain, while the process of refunding billions in collected tariff revenues could prove complex.

Scott Lincicome from the libertarian Cato Institute highlighted potential challenges: “That refund process could be easy, but it appears more likely that more litigation and paperwork will be required – a particularly unfair burden for smaller importers that lack the resources to litigate tariff refund claims yet never did anything wrong.”

He urged Congress to establish permanent safeguards against unilateral tariff actions: “The tariff beatings will continue until Congress reclaims some of its constitutional authority over U.S. trade policy and checks the administration’s worst tariff impulses.”

Leading House Democrats praised the Supreme Court’s action, with Rep. Richard Neal, ranking Democratic member on the House Ways and Means Committee, calling the decision “a victory for the American people, the rule of law, and our standing in the global economy.”

Neal criticized the tariffs for inflating grocery and energy costs while destabilizing small enterprises, demanding the administration compensate affected consumers and businesses.

Rep. Brendan Boyle, ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, argued the tariffs damaged the economy and burdened families financially. “Today’s decision is an important step toward protecting families and restoring basic economic fairness,” Boyle stated.

The National Retail Federation’s executive vice president of government relations, Dave French, welcomed the ruling as providing “much-needed certainty for U.S. businesses and manufacturers.”

“Clear and consistent trade policy is essential for economic growth, creating jobs and opportunities for American families,” he emphasized, urging courts to ensure smooth refund procedures that would boost the economy and allow companies to reinvest in operations, employees, and customers.

House Majority PAC, a leading Democratic political action committee, used the decision to target vulnerable Republicans, stating: “The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the law, but it doesn’t rewrite history. Vulnerable House Republicans repeatedly voted to enable Trump’s tariffs, which raised prices and wreaked economic havoc on American families and businesses. Their constituents have paid the price, and House Majority PAC will ensure Republicans are held accountable for their votes come November.”

Ann Robinson, owner of Scottish Gourmet in Greensboro, North Carolina, which imports food and gifts from the UK, India, and China, expressed jubilation at the news.

“I am overjoyed, but nervous about what new method the current administration will take to cover the deficit spending caused by the Big Beautiful Bill,” she said. “Tariffs were the easy answer — now that is gone.”

The 10% baseline duty on UK merchandise pressured Robinson’s business significantly. “I ended up spending about $30,000 on tariffs in the fall season,” she revealed, wondering about the timeline for tariff elimination.

“I have goods flying in next week, and a container docking next Friday,” she noted. “Time to schedule my ‘Say Goodbye to Tariffs Sale’!”

Businesses have collectively paid billions in tariff fees, with major retailers like Costco already pursuing court refunds, though Justice Kavanaugh warned of potential complications.

“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his dissenting opinion.

We Pay the Tariffs, representing over 800 small businesses opposing the duties, emphasized the critical need for efficient refund mechanisms.

Executive director Dan Anthony stated: “A legal victory is meaningless without actual relief for the businesses that paid these tariffs. The administration’s only responsible course of action now is to establish a fast, efficient, and automatic refund process that returns tariff money to the businesses that paid it.”

The White House remained notably silent for approximately 20 minutes following the court’s announcement, despite Trump having anticipated the possibility of an adverse ruling on his emergency tariff powers.

This decision severely undermines Trump’s conviction that he could implement import taxes without congressional approval, adding to the uncertainty his fluctuating tariff policies have created since returning to office.

Trump previously warned that losing this case would devastate the U.S. economy and cause budget deficits to skyrocket without tariff income.

The CAMEO Network, representing small businesses, applauded Friday’s Supreme Court ruling.

CEO Carolina Martinez stated: “Tariffs are holding back U.S. manufacturing, driving up costs for businesses and consumers, and slowing our economy. Our hope is that this ruling provides relief for business owners who have been navigating supply chain shocks and uncertainty over the past year.”

The decision comes despite Trump’s recent success with emergency court orders allowing extraordinary executive actions on various issues from high-profile dismissals to significant federal spending reductions.

Financial markets showed modest positive movement following the tariff ruling, with the S&P 500 rising 0.1% minutes after the announcement. The index had been fluctuating between minor gains and losses earlier, as disappointing economic growth data and accelerating inflation reports had minimal market impact.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 20 points (less than 0.1%), while the Nasdaq composite increased 0.1%. Treasury bond yields remained relatively stable.

While Trump retains tariff authority, he cannot use the rapid-implementation law he previously employed. Senior administration officials indicate plans to maintain the tariff structure through alternative legal mechanisms, though other statutes impose greater restrictions on the speed and scope of presidential trade actions.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the tariffs would have generated approximately $3 trillion in economic impact over the coming decade.

The Justice Department defended Trump’s use of a 1977 emergency import regulation law, arguing it encompasses tariff-setting authority. Legal challengers contended the statute never mentions tariffs and that Trump’s application failed multiple legal standards, including criteria that invalidated former President Biden’s $500 billion student loan forgiveness initiative.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, supported by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump’s three Supreme Court nominees, along with the court’s three liberal justices.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s other appointee, penned the primary dissent with support from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

WASHINGTON – A new federal regulation released Friday by the Trump administration could suspend employment authorization for asylum seekers for potentially decades, marking one of the most significant changes to immigration work permits in recent history.

The Department of Homeland Security unveiled the proposed regulation aimed at discouraging migrants from submitting asylum claims primarily to obtain legal employment authorization while also reducing case backlogs to enhance security screening procedures.

This regulatory change, expected to face court challenges, represents part of President Trump’s comprehensive strategy to curtail both authorized and unauthorized immigration. Following his 2025 return to the presidency, Trump has continued his campaign messaging that characterized immigrants and asylum seekers as criminals and economic burdens, despite research showing otherwise.

Under the DHS proposal, employment permit processing would halt for all future asylum applicants until average case processing times drop to 180 days or less. Given existing delays, federal officials project it would require 14 to 173 years to achieve this benchmark, though they note various factors might accelerate the timeline.

The administration has also outlined stricter qualification standards for asylum-related work authorization, maintaining that employment permits are “not an entitlement” but remain under the homeland security secretary’s authority.

The regulation’s most significant provision would prohibit migrants who entered the country without authorization from obtaining new employment permits or extending current ones. Limited exemptions would apply only to individuals who contacted border officials within 48 hours of entry to report persecution fears, torture concerns, or other emergency circumstances that forced illegal crossing.

Immigration rights organizations and Democratic lawmakers have condemned Trump’s aggressive asylum policies, arguing they violate established domestic and international legal frameworks.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump acknowledged Friday that he is weighing the possibility of launching a limited military action against Iran, though he offered no additional specifics about any potential operation.

When White House reporters questioned whether he was contemplating a targeted strike designed to bring Iran to the negotiating table regarding its nuclear activities, Trump responded by saying “I guess I can say I am considering” such action.

The president’s brief comments came during a media availability at the White House on February 20th, but he declined to elaborate further on what form any military response might take or the timeline for such a decision.

Throughout his political career, President Donald Trump has consistently promoted unsubstantiated theories about electoral fraud to justify his 2020 defeat against Democrat Joe Biden.

With his return to the presidency, Trump has filled key positions in his administration with numerous individuals who previously endorsed his disputed claims and, in certain instances, assisted in efforts to challenge his electoral defeat.

Federal authorities took their first major step in Trump’s promised investigation of the 2020 election by confiscating voting materials and electoral documentation from Georgia’s Fulton County in late January. This Democratic-leaning county, which encompasses Atlanta, has frequently been targeted by election conspiracy advocates supporting Trump.

In other developments:

Iranian forces conducted their yearly joint military exercises with Russia while a second U.S. aircraft carrier moved toward the Middle East region.

Washington and Tehran are both indicating their readiness for potential military conflict should negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear activities collapse. On Thursday, Trump stated his belief that Iran has between 10 to 15 days to secure an agreement.

However, diplomatic discussions concerning Iran’s nuclear capabilities have remained stalled for multiple years, with Iranian officials declining to address broader American and Israeli requests to reduce their missile development and cut connections with militant organizations. Recent indirect negotiations have shown minimal advancement, with either or both nations potentially using this time to prepare for possible military action.

American military assets in the Middle East continue to increase.

A significant staffing transition has taken place in the office of Brooke Rollins, with her chief of staff position changing hands following the departure of Tkacz Buller.

Bennett has been selected to fill the vacant chief of staff role after Tkacz Buller concluded their service as Rollins’ primary administrative aide. The transition marks the end of Tkacz Buller’s period serving in the influential position.

The staffing change represents a notable shift in the leadership structure supporting Rollins’ operations, as the chief of staff role typically involves overseeing daily administrative functions and serving as a key advisor.

Details regarding the timing of the transition and Bennett’s background in the new position were not immediately available. The change comes as part of ongoing administrative adjustments within Rollins’ office structure.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican leaders in Texas have crafted a new congressional district map designed to give their party an advantage in upcoming midterm elections. However, the success of this strategy remains uncertain as it depends heavily on whether supporters who backed President Donald Trump in recent elections will continue voting for other GOP candidates when his name isn’t on the ballot.

The redesigned electoral map aims to help Republicans capture five seats currently held by Democrats, a goal originally outlined by Trump. Should this plan succeed, Democratic representation in Texas would shrink dramatically from the current 13 districts to just eight out of the state’s total 38 congressional seats.

To achieve this objective, Republican mapmakers employed a redistricting technique known as “cracking,” which involves distributing Democratic-leaning voters throughout multiple districts where Republican-leaning voters hold numerical advantages. This approach makes it more challenging for Democratic candidates to build winning coalitions in individual congressional contests.

However, the calculations underlying this strategy are far from straightforward. Accurately forecasting voter behavior and turnout patterns presents significant challenges, and miscalculations can lead to unexpected results.

Political analysts typically examine the most recent general election results when making these predictions. This method relies on the premise that recent voting data provides the clearest indication of current voter sentiment and preferences.

The redrawn map would likely deliver those five targeted seats to Republicans if Texas voters maintain the same patterns they displayed during the 2024 presidential contest — meaning Trump supporters continue backing Republican candidates while Kamala Harris voters remain loyal to Democrats. Based on this scenario, districts such as the newly configured 28th and 34th, currently represented by Democrats, would switch to Republican control.

Nevertheless, individual elections are significantly influenced by broader political circumstances at the time. Factors such as incumbent party popularity and economic conditions play crucial roles in voter decision-making.

Regarding 2024, those factors favored Republicans, as the party experienced nationwide success, particularly Trump’s strong performance. Analysis by the Associated Press indicates that if 2026 voters replicate their 2024 presidential voting behavior, most congressional races wouldn’t be particularly competitive. Only four districts would feature margins closer than 15 percentage points.

Conversely, when applying results from a more Democratic-friendly election to these new districts, the outlook becomes considerably less certain. If voters return to their 2020 presidential voting patterns, Republicans would face greater difficulty securing all five targeted seats.

Using 2020 presidential results instead of 2024 data reveals significant shifts in several areas. Border districts with substantial Hispanic populations move from narrow Republican advantages to slight Democratic leads. Meanwhile, Dallas-area districts transition from strongly Republican to more competitive, though still GOP-favoring territory. Under 2020 voting patterns, nine districts would have margins within 15 points.

Some seats remain likely Republican pickups regardless of which election year serves as the model. For example, a Dallas-area district currently represented by Democratic Rep. Marc Veasey has been redrawn to include significantly more Republican-leaning voters, making it difficult for Democrats to retain even under 2020-style voting patterns.

Rather than campaign for reelection in his substantially altered district, Veasey has announced his retirement from Congress.

“The city of Fort Worth has no Democratic representation,” Veasey commented regarding the new district boundaries.

“It’s going to be sad,” Veasey continued. “I feel terrible.”

The critical uncertainty centers on whether voters who supported Trump in 2024 will maintain their Republican loyalty during midterm elections. While the entire country shifted rightward in 2024 compared to 2020, certain demographic groups showed more pronounced movement than others. Hispanic voters, who comprise significant portions of border communities and major Texas cities, supported Trump at notably higher levels than they had previously.

However, there are concerning indicators for this redistricting strategy, especially in areas with large Hispanic populations. Despite Trump’s substantial margin improvements along the southern border, voters in those same areas reelected Democratic incumbent Representatives Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez to Congress. Both legislators are seeking reelection in their reconfigured districts.

The ultimate success of Texas’ new congressional map depends on resolving a fundamental question: whether 2024 represented a lasting political realignment or simply the peak of Republican gains among crucial voter groups. While upcoming primaries won’t definitively answer this question, they will provide initial indicators of whether the map’s designers made the correct assumptions.

As President Donald Trump begins his new term, he has filled key government positions with individuals who previously supported his unfounded claims about the 2020 election being stolen from him. These appointees, who range from top Justice Department officials to government lawyers, had previously helped promote conspiracy theories about voting irregularities that Trump used to explain his defeat to Joe Biden.

Among the most notable appointments is Kurt Olsen, an attorney who previously tried unsuccessfully to convince the Justice Department to support Trump’s disputed election claims in 2020. Olsen now heads a comprehensive investigation into that election, with authority to examine voting records and procedures from four years ago.

The investigation’s most significant move occurred in January when federal agents confiscated voting materials and election documentation from Fulton County, Georgia. This Democratic-leaning county, which encompasses Atlanta, has frequently been targeted by Trump supporters who question election results. Court documents reveal the search was justified using many of the same disputed claims from 2020 that had already undergone extensive investigation.

Election administrators nationwide, particularly in Democratic-controlled states, are preparing for potential disruptions as this year’s congressional elections approach.

“The election denial movement is now embedded across our federal government, which makes it more powerful than ever,” stated Joanna Lydgate, who leads the States United Democracy Center, an organization that monitors election conspiracy promotion. “Trump and his allies are trying to use all of the powers of the federal government to undermine elections, with an eye to the upcoming midterms.”

The president has transformed federal agencies to serve his personal agenda, with Attorney General Pam Bondi—who previously assisted Trump’s efforts to challenge his 2020 defeat—announcing that all Justice Department personnel must fulfill the president’s directives. Despite facing numerous challenges including economic concerns and immigration enforcement, Trump continues asserting he actually won the 2020 presidential race.

Trump’s administration includes various categories of election conspiracy supporters: longtime allies like Bondi who stood by him during his election challenges, individuals who played smaller roles in promoting 2020 election falsehoods, and others who have spread debunked theories that convinced millions of Republicans the election was fraudulent.

A yearly government spending report from Oklahoma’s Republican Senator James Lankford has highlighted questionable uses of federal tax dollars, including costly animal research projects. According to Lankford’s findings, the current administration allocated close to $250 million for laboratory studies involving hormone treatments on various animals including monkeys, mice, and rats. The research aimed to alter the animals’ biological sex characteristics but proved unsuccessful. The senator’s waste report also noted that researchers administered substances commonly used in certain nightlife communities to the test animals during these failed experiments.

The Trump administration revealed plans Friday to scale back environmental regulations controlling mercury and other dangerous air pollutants from coal-burning power facilities during an announcement in Kentucky. Officials argue this action will strengthen energy reliability, while public health advocates warn it poses risks to America’s most at-risk communities.

The Environmental Protection Agency under President Trump contends that relaxing these pollution controls will reduce operational expenses for utility companies operating older coal facilities during a period of increasing electricity demands driven by artificial intelligence data center growth.

However, environmental advocates argue that loosening restrictions on mercury—a dangerous neurotoxin capable of damaging infant brain development—along with other harmful air pollutants will ultimately increase healthcare expenses.

The current Mercury and Air Toxics Standard from the Biden administration, which enhanced regulations originally established in 2012 during the Obama presidency, remained active after the Supreme Court refused to halt the requirements following legal challenges from primarily Republican-led states and industry organizations.

According to the Environmental Defense Fund, these existing regulations would cut permitted mercury emissions from coal facilities by 70%, decrease nickel, arsenic, lead and other dangerous metal emissions by two-thirds, and generate $420 million in health-related cost savings by 2037.

In a Wednesday statement, the EPA indicated that the original 2012 MATS regulations offer “an ample margin of safety to protect public health,” while claiming the proposed 2024 enhancements would impose costs exceeding their benefits.

Power companies had been gradually retiring older coal-burning facilities, which represent significant sources of mercury and carbon pollution, but Trump has pledged to eliminate obstacles preventing increased electricity generation needed for artificial intelligence applications and data processing centers.

Trump proclaimed an “energy emergency” last year to support efforts keeping aging coal facilities operational that were scheduled for shutdown and to exclude older coal plants from important air quality regulations.

During spring of last year, he issued an order allowing coal facilities to request email-based exemptions from MATS requirements for two years under his administration’s energy emergency declaration. Sixty-eight facilities received these exemptions.

The EPA announced last week it was eliminating the “endangerment finding,” which provided the agency authority to control greenhouse gas pollution, while the White House instructed the Pentagon to buy electricity from coal facilities for military operations.

Coal-fired generating stations rank among the biggest contributors of dangerous air contamination, including mercury, lead, arsenic, and acidic gases, plus significant sources of benzene, formaldehyde, dioxins and additional organic toxic air pollutants.

According to the Energy Information Administration, coal facilities produce under 20% of America’s electrical power.

A federal panel overseeing architectural decisions for the White House has given the go-ahead to President Trump’s proposed ballroom addition to the executive mansion.

The Commission on Fine Arts, whose membership currently consists primarily of individuals appointed by Trump, cast their votes in favor of moving forward with the ballroom construction project that the president has been championing.

The commission serves as the official advisory body for design matters affecting federal buildings and monuments in the nation’s capital, including any modifications to the White House complex.

A federal panel responsible for reviewing artistic and architectural projects at government facilities has given its blessing to President Trump’s proposed White House ballroom addition.

The U.S. Commission on Fine Arts cast their votes in favor of the ballroom construction project that Trump has been pushing forward. The commission currently consists of members who are considered allies of the president.

The approval moves the White House expansion project one step closer to reality, though additional approvals and planning stages will likely be required before construction can begin.

Victims of California’s catastrophic wildfires report they have become caught in the middle of a political standoff between federal and state leadership that is blocking crucial disaster assistance. The political tensions are creating additional hardships for families already struggling to piece their lives back together after losing everything.

Many fire survivors describe feeling trapped in a bureaucratic battle that has little to do with their immediate needs for housing, financial support, and resources to start over. The dispute between Washington and Sacramento officials is creating delays and complications in the aid distribution process.

For these families, the political maneuvering means extended waits for help while they face mounting bills and the overwhelming task of rebuilding from scratch. The situation highlights how partisan disagreements can directly impact disaster victims who desperately need immediate assistance to move forward with their recovery.

A Texas businessman with close connections to former President Donald Trump’s family has entered into a partnership with Russian energy company Novatek to develop natural gas resources in Alaska, according to a New York Times report published Friday.

Gentry Beach, the financier in question, quietly reached the agreement with the Russian energy giant last fall, even as Western sanctions against Russia remain in place due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

The partnership emerged following discussions that took place in August when Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held talks in Alaska focused on finding ways to end the war in Ukraine.

During those negotiations, American and Russian representatives explored various energy partnership opportunities as side discussions. Sources with knowledge of the conversations indicated these business proposals were intended to provide incentives for the Kremlin to pursue a peace agreement in Ukraine while encouraging Washington to reduce sanctions on Russia.

Despite these diplomatic efforts, the conflict in Ukraine continues after four years of warfare.

According to the Times report, which included an interview with the Texas businessman, Beach acknowledged signing the development agreement with Novatek but emphasized the project remains in preliminary phases and confronts substantial challenges. He chose not to reveal financial specifics of the arrangement.

When contacted by the newspaper, Novatek confirmed it was “indeed having negotiations on the potential use” of its technology for liquefying natural gas in Alaska’s remote northern regions, though the company stopped short of confirming Beach as its partner.

Neither Novatek nor Beach responded to Reuters’ requests for additional comment.

Beach serves as chairman and CEO of America First Global, an investment company with holdings in energy, mining and infrastructure sectors. He played a role in fundraising for Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and helped develop the administration’s “America First” economic and diplomatic policies.

The New York Times also reported that Beach maintains a college friendship with Donald Trump Jr.

Along Louisiana’s industrial corridor, where approximately 170 fossil fuel and petrochemical facilities operate, early death has become commonplace for nearby residents. The region’s severe air contamination and elevated cancer rates have earned it the grim nickname “Cancer Alley.”

“The majority of adults in our area find themselves going to two or three funerals every month,” explained Gary C. Watson Jr., a lifelong resident of St. John the Baptist Parish, a predominantly Black neighborhood in Cancer Alley located roughly 30 miles from New Orleans. While his father beat cancer, Watson has lost at least five family members to the disease in recent years.

Cancer Alley represents just one of numerous areas across America — predominantly inhabited by minorities and economically disadvantaged residents — that endure elevated air pollution from fossil fuel operations releasing microscopic particles linked to increased mortality rates. Federal authorities designated carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as public health threats due to climate change in 2009, resulting in stricter pollution controls and improved air quality in certain areas. However, this month the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency reversed that “endangerment finding.”

Health professionals predict this policy shift will likely result in increased sickness and fatalities among Americans, with neighborhoods like Watson’s bearing the greatest burden. On Wednesday, a group of health and environmental organizations filed a lawsuit against the EPA challenging the revocation as illegal and dangerous.

“Without these safeguards in place, conditions will only deteriorate further,” Watson stated, representing the environmental justice organization Rise St. James Louisiana. He expressed additional concern that eliminating the endangerment finding will boost emissions that could intensify Louisiana’s hurricane activity.

The Trump administration defended its position, arguing the finding — which served as the foundation for numerous climate change regulations — damages industry and economic growth. President Donald Trump has dismissed climate science as “a scam” despite extensive research proving otherwise.

Mounting research demonstrates that impoverished and Black, Latino, and other minority populations face greater vulnerability to pollution and climate-related disasters including floods, hurricanes, and extreme temperatures compared to white populations, largely due to having fewer resources for protection and recovery. The EPA reached identical conclusions in a 2021 study no longer available on its website.

While the finding’s elimination will impact all Americans, “overburdened communities, which are typically communities of color, Indigenous communities and low-income communities, they will, again, suffer most from these actions,” explained Matthew Tejada, senior vice president for environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Council and former EPA environmental justice deputy.

Hilda Berganza, climate program manager with the Hispanic Access Foundation, stated: “Communities that are the front lines are going to feel it the most. And we can see that the Latino population is one of those communities that is going feel it even more than others because of where we live, where we work.”

Research published in November revealed that over 46 million Americans reside within one mile of energy infrastructure such as oil wells, power plants, or refineries. The study determined that “persistently marginalized” racial and ethnic populations were more frequently located near multiple such facilities, with Latinos experiencing the highest exposure levels.

The EPA’s 2021 analysis projected that with global temperatures rising 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), Black Americans would be 40% more likely to inhabit areas with the steepest projected increases in heat-related deaths. Latinos, who are heavily represented in outdoor sectors like farming and construction, faced 43% higher likelihood of living where heat-related work hour losses would peak.

Julia Silver, a senior research analyst at UCLA’s Latino Policy and Politics Institute, discovered through her research that California Latino communities experienced 23 additional extreme heat days annually compared to non-Latino white areas. Her team also documented that these regions suffer poor air quality at approximately twice the rate, with double the asthma-related emergency department visits. Additional studies show Latino children face 40% higher asthma mortality rates than white children, partly due to inconsistent healthcare access.

“What we’re risking with a rollback like this at the federal level is really human health and well-being in these marginalized groups,” Silver warned.

Armando Carpio, a veteran Los Angeles pastor, has witnessed his predominantly Latino congregation’s vulnerability firsthand. Many work as construction laborers and landscapers in outdoor conditions, frequently during extreme heat. Others live and work adjacent to polluting highways. He observes children suffering from asthma and elderly parishioners with dementia, both conditions connected to air pollution exposure.

“We’re regressing,” he observed. “I don’t know how many years back, but all of this really affects us.”

While quantifying the exact additional impact on communities of color from the finding’s revocation proves challenging, experts interviewed by The Associated Press unanimously agreed it would be substantial.

“You will see statistically significant increases in excess morbidity and mortality when it comes to climate impacts and health impacts associated with co-pollutants” in communities of color, predicted Sacoby Wilson, a University of Maryland professor and executive director of the nonprofit Center for Engagement, Environmental Justice and Health INpowering Communities.

Beverly Wright, founding director of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice in New Orleans, noted that at least four Black communities in Cancer Alley have vanished due to industrial facility expansion. The repeal will generate additional pollution, elevated cancer rates, more severe weather events, and the elimination of additional historic neighborhoods, she warned.

“It has us going in the wrong direction, and our communities are now at greater risk,” she concluded.

The Trump administration has placed a banner displaying the president’s image at the Justice Department’s main building in Washington, marking another step in efforts to brand federal institutions with Trump’s identity.

Officials hung the blue banner on Thursday, positioning it between two columns at a corner section of the Justice Department headquarters. The banner features the message “Make America Safe Again.”

This installation represents part of a broader campaign by Trump to place his mark on government agencies since beginning his second term. The administration has been systematically placing loyalists in key positions, renaming federal institutions, and removing officials connected to previous investigations.

Similar banners displaying Trump’s image have already been installed at other federal buildings, including the Department of Labor, Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Institute for Peace facilities.

Additionally, a presidential board voted in December to add Trump’s name to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The president’s name was also added to the U.S. Institute of Peace building in Washington during the past year.

When asked about the Justice Department banner, the White House directed inquiries to the Justice Department, which initially did not provide a response. However, a Justice Department representative later told NBC News that the agency was “proud” to highlight its “historic work to make America safe again at President Trump’s direction.”

The banner installation comes after a contentious history between Trump and the Justice Department. In 2023, former special counsel Jack Smith brought charges against Trump for allegedly keeping classified materials after his first presidency and for attempting to reverse his 2020 election loss.

Trump maintained his false assertions about winning the 2020 election, and his followers attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, trying unsuccessfully to stop Congress from confirming the election results. After taking office again in January 2025, Trump issued pardons for those Capitol rioters.

Trump consistently rejected any wrongdoing and described the legal cases as politically driven attacks. Smith ultimately dismissed both cases after Trump’s 2024 election victory, following Justice Department guidelines that prohibit prosecuting sitting presidents.

Smith left his position at the Justice Department shortly before Trump returned to the presidency early last year. Since then, Trump’s Justice Department has dismissed numerous officials who participated in investigations targeting the Republican president.

The Trump administration has outlined plans to restrict large-scale real estate investors from purchasing additional residential properties, according to a Thursday report from the Wall Street Journal.

A White House memorandum delivered to congressional committee leadership details the proposed restriction, which would prevent investors who already own more than 100 single-family properties from acquiring more homes, the Journal reported.

The plan includes several exceptions to the purchasing restriction, particularly for investors who construct new homes or undertake major renovations on properties intended exclusively for rental markets, according to the report.

Administration officials are working to incorporate this investor restriction into ongoing Senate housing legislation negotiations, the Wall Street Journal indicated.

When contacted for comment Thursday evening, White House representatives had not yet provided a response.

This proposal builds upon an executive order President Trump issued in January aimed at limiting large institutional investors’ ability to compete against individual home purchasers, with the goal of improving housing affordability.

Facing pressure to tackle housing cost concerns before this year’s congressional elections, the Trump administration has rolled out multiple initiatives, including mortgage-backed securities purchases, designed to make homeownership more accessible to Americans.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced Thursday his intention to have the Pentagon and federal agencies identify and make public all documentation concerning extraterrestrial beings and unidentified flying objects, citing widespread public fascination.

The president’s announcement came through social media just hours after he criticized former President Barack Obama for revealing what Trump called “classified information” during Obama’s recent podcast discussion about the possibility of alien life.

Speaking to journalists on Air Force One, Trump stated, “I don’t know if they’re real or not,” and regarding Obama’s comments added, “I may get him out of trouble by declassifying.”

In his Thursday evening social media statement, Trump explained he was instructing federal departments to make public all documentation concerning “alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters.”

Obama’s weekend podcast remarks, which sparked Trump’s response, were later clarified by the former president, who explained he hadn’t witnessed proof that aliens “have made contact with us,” but noted, “statistically, the universe is so vast that the odds are good there’s life out there.”

When questioned about potential extraterrestrial visitors, Trump told reporters Thursday: “I don’t have an opinion on it. I never talk about it. A lot of people do. A lot of people believe it.”

However, Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law, indicated this week on a podcast that he was prepared to address the subject, claiming the president had prepared remarks about aliens that he would deliver at the “right time.”

This revelation surprised White House staff. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt chuckled when reporters asked about it Wednesday, telling them, “A speech on aliens would be news to me.”

Widespread curiosity about UFOs and potential government concealment of alien evidence returned to mainstream attention following 2017 leaks to The New York Times and Politico by former Pentagon and government personnel, who shared Navy footage of unexplained objects. This renewed attention led Congress to conduct its first UFO hearings in five decades during May 2022, though officials determined the objects, appearing as green triangles above a Navy vessel, were probably drones.

The Pentagon has since committed to greater openness on this subject. In July 2022, it established the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) as a centralized hub for collecting military UFO encounter reports, replacing a previous departmental task force.

In 2023, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, who led AARO at that time, informed reporters he possessed no proof “of any program having ever existed as a to do any sort of reverse engineering of any sort of extraterrestrial (unidentified aerial phenomena).”

Released information indicates most military UFO reports remain unexplained, though identified cases typically involve ordinary objects.

An 18-page unclassified congressional report from June 2024 revealed service members submitted 485 reports of unexplained phenomena over the previous year, with 118 cases determined to be “prosaic objects such as various types of balloons, birds, and unmanned aerial systems.”

“It is important to underscore that, to date, AARO has discovered no evidence of extraterrestrial beings, activity, or technology,” the report emphasized.

President Donald Trump made his way to Rome, Georgia on Thursday with economic messaging at the forefront of his agenda.

The administration has consistently emphasized its intention to prioritize economic matters, with Trump regularly asserting he deserves greater recognition for the nation’s financial performance. However, recent headlines have been dominated by other pressing matters, including violent incidents during immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis and potential military engagement with Iran.

Trump’s choice to visit this particular Georgia location appears strategically motivated. The event took place in the congressional district formerly held by Marjorie Taylor Greene, a one-time ally who stepped down from her position in January.

During his passionate public address, the president also addressed the Supreme Court’s ongoing examination of his authority to implement global trade tariffs through emergency powers legislation.

“I’ve been waiting forever, forever, and the language is clear that I have the right to do it as president,” Trump shouted. He added, “The tariff is the greatest thing that has happened to this country.”

Addressing inflation concerns, Trump declared the issue resolved while pointing fingers at Democratic opposition. “They caused the affordability problem. And we solved it,” he stated.

The White House released an official statement outlining the administration’s accomplishments in Georgia:

“As President Donald J. Trump visits Georgia today, he returns to a state that is seeing real recovery, safer communities, and renewed strength under his leadership — as more work remains to fully reverse the economic damage of the Biden era.” The statement continued, emphasizing that Trump remains committed to ensuring every Georgian benefits from reduced costs, increased wages, secure neighborhoods, and widespread prosperity.

Key economic highlights from the White House statement include:

Energy Cost Reductions:

Georgia drivers are paying $2.71 per gallon for gasoline — a 40% decrease from the record highs experienced during the Biden administration, with additional savings anticipated.

Tax Relief Benefits:

The Working Families Tax Cuts Act, championed by Trump and Republicans, is saving the typical Georgia household $3,086 annually in tax obligations. Projections indicate Georgian workers could see wage increases of up to $6,700 per person in coming years. The tax reforms are expected to safeguard 204,000 Georgia jobs moving forward. Rural healthcare infrastructure across Georgia is receiving more than $218 million in Republican-backed investment.

Immigration Enforcement:

ICE operations under the Trump administration have removed numerous criminal illegal immigrants from Georgia communities, including individuals convicted of serious violent crimes. Recent arrests include a previously deported Mexican national charged with sexual assault of an 11-year-old, a murder suspect from Mexico, a Salvadoran national with seven felony burglary convictions, a Honduran individual facing domestic violence charges, and a Canadian firearms trafficker previously on that country’s most wanted list.

Housing Market Improvements:

Statewide home prices have declined nearly 2% compared to last year. The Atlanta metropolitan area has experienced a 4.1% drop in median listing prices over the past year, ranking among the nation’s top markets for falling home costs.

Infrastructure and Recovery Support:

The administration recently announced over $1 billion in available funding for Georgia communities and healthcare facilities.

Major Business Investments:

Several significant corporate commitments are bringing jobs and economic opportunities to Georgia. A $600 million synthetic diamond manufacturing facility, part of Japan’s $550 billion U.S. investment pledge, is moving forward to support critical manufacturing and semiconductor requirements while reducing foreign dependency. Amazon Web Services plans an estimated $11 billion infrastructure expansion in Georgia, potentially creating at least 550 high-skilled positions. Salesforce is investing $15 million to expand its Georgia operations, adding over 250 new jobs. JS Link announced a $223 million investment for a rare earth magnet production facility, expected to generate 520 new positions.

The White House statement concluded: “The proof is in the progress: Lower costs, more opportunities, safer communities, and renewed economic energy mean Georgia families are winning again under President Trump — and the best is yet to come.” It emphasized that Republican leadership is working toward a more prosperous future for all Georgians, with Trump’s visit demonstrating his continued dedication to completing his agenda.

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee is refuting claims made by media personality Tucker Carlson regarding his treatment at Ben-Gurion Airport after conducting an interview there.

Carlson, a former Fox News host known for his criticism of Israel, conducted an interview with Ambassador Huckabee at the airport’s VIP terminal. According to sources who spoke with The Jerusalem Post, their discussion centered on how Christians are treated throughout Israel and the broader Middle East region.

After the meeting, Carlson alleged mistreatment by Israeli security. Speaking to the Daily Mail, he stated: “Men who identified themselves as airport security took our passports, hauled our executive producer into a side room and then demanded to know what we spoke to Ambassador Huckabee about.”

However, both the US Embassy and Ambassador Huckabee are challenging this version of events. An embassy representative told the Daily Mail: “It is not accurate that Israel was only going to let Tucker into the country for the interview.”

Embassy officials explained that their only coordination with Israeli authorities involved facilitating the landing of Carlson’s private plane to ensure his visit went smoothly. They stressed that Carlson chose to make only a brief entry into the country before leaving and received the same treatment as any other visitor.

Ambassador Huckabee took to social media platform X to counter Carlson’s narrative, explaining that passport verification and security questioning are standard procedures for all travelers at Israeli airports, including high-ranking officials. The ambassador pointed out that even he must go through these same protocols despite carrying diplomatic credentials.

Huckabee also criticized news organizations for spreading what he termed the “false story” about Carlson being “detained” by Israeli security forces.

The face-to-face meeting came about after tensions arose from Carlson’s February podcast titled “Christian Persecution.” That episode featured conversations with Jerusalem’s Anglican archbishop and a Jordanian business leader that suggested Christians experience substantial persecution in Israel.

In response to Carlson’s criticisms of Christian Zionists, Ambassador Huckabee had challenged him on X, writing: “Hey @TuckerCarlson instead of talking ABOUT me, why don’t you come talk TO me?” Carlson accepted the invitation for a direct conversation.

Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene also traveled to Israel this week to draw attention to what she described as “Christian persecution.”

Ambassador Huckabee, who previously served as Arkansas governor and is an ordained Baptist minister, has been defending Christian Zionism since late January when Jerusalem church leaders criticized it as harmful ideology.

When asked during a podcast interview whether he considers Carlson anti-Semitic, Ambassador Huckabee replied: “If he’s not, he’s hiding his love for Jews very carefully. This is not the Tucker Carlson I’ve known since 1991.”

A high-stakes Democratic Senate primary in Texas has intensified following controversy over a canceled television appearance, as two candidates battle for the opportunity to challenge a veteran Republican incumbent.

U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett made her case to voters Thursday by emphasizing her federal legislative experience as she faces off against state Representative James Talarico in the March 3 primary – the country’s earliest major contest leading up to the 2026 midterm elections.

The race gained unexpected national spotlight when The Late Show with Stephen Colbert decided not to broadcast a pre-recorded interview with Talarico, citing legal concerns from network attorneys about potential Trump administration regulatory issues.

“Now, I’m not saying that this moment is easy, but at least ya’ll know exactly how I operate in this moment on the federal level,” Crockett told supporters in Fort Worth. “You know who I am. You know how I get down.”

The interview controversy appears to have provided significant momentum for Talarico’s campaign, which reported collecting $2.5 million in donations within a day of the broadcast being canceled. Crockett acknowledged during a recent MS NOW interview that the incident likely gave her opponent “the boost he was looking for.”

Harris County Democratic Chair Mike Doyle confirmed the impact was substantial, calling the boost for Talarico’s campaign “undeniable,” though he questioned its lasting effects.

Both candidates gained recognition through popular social media content before launching their Senate bids last year. Talarico frequently incorporates his Christian beliefs and biblical references into his political messaging, while Crockett became known for her sharp public criticism of Republican officials.

The winner will face the victor of a competitive Republican primary featuring four-term Senator John Cornyn, who confronts his most challenging election yet against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and U.S. Representative Wesley Hunt.

Texas Democrats haven’t captured a Senate seat since 1988, but party strategists believe this cycle presents their best opportunity in decades to help regain Senate control, particularly if Republicans select Paxton, who appeals to Trump supporters but carries significant legal baggage.

“It was an honor to vote in this election. It was my name on the ballot,” Talarico said after casting his early vote in Austin. “But this is a movement that includes thousands of Texans. We are building a movement to take back our state and our country.”

The television controversy emerged when Colbert announced Monday that CBS legal advisors recommended against airing the Talarico segment due to concerns about violating Trump administration regulatory guidance regarding equal time requirements for political candidates.

While talk shows typically receive exemptions from equal time rules, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, appointed by Trump, has questioned whether such exemptions should continue. The interview was subsequently released on YouTube, where it accumulated nearly 8 million views by Thursday.

Both Colbert and Talarico characterized CBS’s decision as yielding to Trump administration pressure, while the network maintained its lawyers simply provided standard legal advice. Crockett, who has previously appeared on Colbert’s program, called the YouTube strategy effective for generating publicity.

During her Fort Worth campaign stop Thursday, Crockett urged supporters to maintain their intensity, warning that democracy faces serious threats under Trump’s presidency.

“You cannot let up off the gas” because democracy under Trump is “hanging on by a thread,” Crockett said. “People want to know that it is not business as usual and that you are going to go to the mat because it matters. People are mad.”

Ivon Gonzalez, a 41-year-old registered nurse from Fort Worth who attended Crockett’s event after voting early, acknowledged awareness of the Colbert situation but said she hadn’t viewed the interview.

“I do think that he has a big following and he seemed like a good guy overall,” she said. “I just want somebody with more grit, with more just fearlessness.”

A Texas congressman is fighting back against allegations of an extramarital affair with a former employee who tragically took her own life last year.

Representative Tony Gonzales, a married Republican, declared Thursday that he refuses to be extorted after the San Antonio Express-News published a story about alleged text messages from his former staffer, Regina Ann Santos-Aviles. In those messages, Santos-Aviles reportedly told a coworker about having a romantic relationship with the congressman.

The Associated Press has not verified these text messages independently. However, an attorney representing Santos-Aviles’ widower confirmed Thursday that the husband discovered the alleged affair before his wife’s death.

Gonzales, who represents a sprawling border district from San Antonio to El Paso and is seeking reelection in the March 3 primary, has not responded to requests for comment through his representatives. Instead, he took to social media platform X, sharing part of an email from the widow’s legal counsel and claiming he was being targeted for money.

“I WILL NOT BE BLACKMAILED,” Gonzales declared in his Thursday post. “Disgusting to see people profit politically and financially off a tragic death.”

The email excerpt Gonzales shared shows attorney Robert Barrera discussing potential legal action against the lawmaker and mentioning a possible settlement including a confidentiality clause. The correspondence indicates damages could reach up to $300,000.

Barrera strongly rejected accusations of extortion during a phone conversation with The AP Thursday.

“It is a desperate attempt to make him look again like a political victim,” Barrera explained. “There’s no blackmail here. I mean, it’s just ridiculous allegations.”

Santos-Aviles, age 35, died in September 2025 after igniting herself in her backyard in Uvalde. Medical examiners in Bexar County officially determined her death was suicide by self-immolation.

The congressman, who has six children with his spouse, represents a district that spans the entire U.S.-Mexico border region.

Barrera explained that his published email was part of ongoing negotiations with Gonzales’ legal team after his client decided to pursue compensation through litigation under the Congressional Accountability Act, which shields legislative branch workers from workplace harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.

The attorney alleges that once the affair came to light, Gonzales punished Santos-Aviles professionally by severely limiting her responsibilities, workplace access, and career opportunities.

President Donald Trump has given his backing to Gonzales, who faces a primary battle against Brandon Herrera. Herrera, who came close to defeating Gonzales in 2024, is now demanding the congressman step down following these revelations.

In a statement to the Texas Tribune earlier this week, Gonzales described Santos-Aviles as “a kind soul who devoted her life to making the community a better place.” He added that he would not “engage in these personal smears and instead will remain focused on helping President Trump secure the border and improve the lives of all Texans.”

Barrera says his client simply wants the congressman to admit to the alleged relationship.

“There’s nothing political here. There’s no demand for him to resign. That’s up to the voters of that district, whether they want a man like Tony Gonzales to lead them into the future,” Barrera stated.

If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of suicide, help is available by calling or texting 988 for the national suicide and crisis lifeline, or through online chat at 988lifeline.org.

Florida’s state legislature has given final approval to a proposal that would rename Palm Beach International Airport in honor of President Donald Trump.

The Florida Senate passed the legislation Thursday with a 25-11 vote, following the state House’s earlier approval by an 81-30 margin just days before.

The voting largely split along party lines, with Republican members backing the proposal while Democratic legislators voiced opposition to changing the airport’s name.

Democratic U.S. Representative Lois Frankel, who serves West Palm Beach, criticized the process, stating: “It’s misguided and unfair that the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature ignored the voices of Palm Beach County by pushing forward a bill to rename Palm Beach International Airport without giving County residents a real opportunity for input.”

The legislation now awaits action from Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, who has yet to indicate his position on the measure. His office has not responded to requests for comment regarding the bill.

Neither the White House nor representatives from Palm Beach County or the Trump Organization provided immediate responses when asked about the proposed name change.

This latest move follows Florida’s decision last year to designate a downtown Miami location for Trump’s future presidential library.

Originally from New York, Trump relocated to Florida in 2019, leaving his Trump Tower penthouse to establish his primary residence at the Mar-a-Lago resort in West Palm Beach.

NEW YORK — A federal court has thrown out a racketeering case brought by a former interim New York City police commissioner who claimed the department operated like a “criminal enterprise” under then-Mayor Eric Adams.

Thomas Donlon, a veteran FBI official who Adams brought in during July to help steady the troubled police force, filed the original legal action alleging he discovered widespread corruption and illegal behavior.

According to Donlon’s claims, Adams and his inner circle regularly allowed inflated overtime payments, shut down internal probes, and retaliated against officers who spoke out about wrongdoing.

Federal Judge Denise Cote ruled Wednesday that the accusations failed to satisfy racketeering requirements since the lawsuit didn’t demonstrate defendants were working toward “a common purpose.”

City Law Department representatives expressed satisfaction that “the court agreed there was no legal basis for this case to continue.” Adams’ spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

Donlon’s legal representative, John Scola, confirmed an appeal has been filed.

“Mr. Donlon confronted corruption within the NYPD’s highest ranks and was forced out for refusing to engage in illegal conduct,” Scola said. “We are confident the Second Circuit will allow his claims to proceed.”

Adams had selected Donlon after Edward Caban stepped down as police commissioner when federal agents confiscated his phone during an extensive investigation into the administration.

Donlon held the temporary position for roughly two months before Jessica Tisch took over permanent leadership of the department.

This legal challenge represented one of multiple cases brought by experienced police leadership describing widespread corruption and favoritism within the force during Adams’ tenure.

Federal prosecutors have recently filed several bribery charges against former police department officials who worked under Adams’ administration.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Kentucky’s highest court delivered a decisive blow to charter school advocates Thursday, declaring unconstitutional a law that would have provided public funding for these alternative educational institutions.

The unanimous Supreme Court decision reinforced that state education dollars must be reserved exclusively for traditional public schools, with no exceptions.

Republican lawmakers had pushed the funding legislation through in 2022, overriding a veto from Democratic Governor Andy Beshear. However, a lower court struck down the law the following year.

Justice Michelle M. Keller penned the court’s opinion, stating that Kentucky’s constitution clearly prohibits directing public education money away from the established common school system.

This legal defeat follows another significant loss for charter school proponents in 2024, when Kentucky voters turned down a constitutional amendment that would have permitted lawmakers to direct taxpayer funds toward private and charter school tuition.

The ongoing battle represents years of frustrated efforts by charter school supporters to establish these institutions in Kentucky. Advocates maintain these schools provide valuable alternatives for families seeking different educational approaches for their children. Critics counter that charter schools would drain essential resources from existing public schools while potentially discriminating in student admissions.

While Kentucky has permitted charter schools since 2017, none have actually opened due to the absence of any funding mechanism.

Justice Keller emphasized that the court’s ruling focused solely on constitutional law, not educational policy.

“We make no predictions about the potential success of charter schools or their ability to improve the education of the Commonwealth’s children, and we leave public policy evaluations to the Commonwealth’s designated policymakers — the General Assembly,” she stated.

However, Keller noted Kentucky’s longstanding constitutional commitment to public education, writing that for over a century, the state has viewed education as a fundamental obligation that has faced repeated challenges.

“The mandate implicates state education funds are for common schools and for nothing else,” the justice concluded.

Congressional Democrats are sounding the alarm over the Census Bureau’s decision to include citizenship questions in practice tests for the 2030 national population count, warning it could frighten immigrant communities and compromise the accuracy of the critical survey.

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Democrats sent a letter Thursday asking the Census Bureau to abandon its plan to use the American Community Survey form, which contains citizenship questions, during field tests scheduled to begin next month in Huntsville, Alabama, and Spartanburg, South Carolina. Instead, they want officials to use standard census forms without such questions.

“The Trump Administration is risking millions of taxpayer dollars to pursue policies which could fatally compromise the 2030 count before it even begins,” the lawmakers stated in their correspondence to acting Census Bureau Director George Cook and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, whose department supervises the statistical agency.

Neither the Census Bureau nor Commerce Department provided immediate responses to requests for comment.

These practice runs allow the statistical agency to develop better methods for counting populations that were missed in previous surveys. The national headcount plays a crucial role in determining congressional representation and Electoral College votes for each state, while also guiding the distribution of $2.8 trillion in federal funding each year. One innovation being evaluated involves having U.S. Postal Service employees handle duties traditionally performed by census workers.

Recently, the Census Bureau announced its 2026 testing strategy would incorporate the American Community Survey form, which poses numerous detailed questions to participants, while canceling planned tests in Colorado Springs, Colorado, western North Carolina, western Texas and Arizona tribal territories.

Democratic lawmakers expressed worry that including citizenship questions would discourage immigrant participation, leading to systematic undercounting of certain populations.

“Many immigrants or citizens in mixed-status families, including green card holders and other legal permanent residents, face fear, chaos, and uncertainty over who the Trump Administration will target next for denaturalization and deportation,” their letter stated.

During his previous presidency, Donald Trump made unsuccessful attempts to insert citizenship questions into the 2020 census. The Republican leader also issued directives aimed at excluding undocumented individuals from congressional apportionment calculations and requiring citizenship data collection.

The Supreme Court ultimately prevented the citizenship question addition, and President Biden eliminated both orders after taking office in January 2021, before the 2020 census results were finalized.

The Constitution’s 14th Amendment specifies that “the whole number of persons in each state” must be counted for congressional and Electoral College apportionment purposes. Census Bureau officials have consistently interpreted this language to include all U.S. residents, regardless of immigration status.

Federal authorities have issued emergency directives forcing coal-fired power plants to remain operational despite utility companies’ desires to permanently close these facilities. This unprecedented federal intervention has triggered a court dispute in Colorado.

The conflict represents a broader clash between the current administration’s energy policies and market forces driving utilities away from coal power. Power companies cite economic and environmental factors in their decisions to decommission aging coal facilities, but federal officials are using emergency powers to override these business decisions.

The Colorado case has become a focal point for this nationwide tension between federal energy mandates and private sector preferences for transitioning to alternative power sources.

RICHMOND, Va. — Democratic efforts to reshape Virginia’s congressional boundaries hit another roadblock Thursday when a state judge issued a temporary restraining order halting preparations for a planned April ballot measure.

Judge Jack Hurley Jr. of the Tazewell Circuit Court approved the emergency order sought by national Republican organizations, citing concerns about both the timeline and language of the proposed referendum that could potentially shift control of four U.S. House seats.

The Republican National Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee filed the legal challenge, joined by GOP Representatives Ben Cline and Morgan Griffith, who contended that Democratic lawmakers were forcing redistricting legislation through the statehouse while ignoring procedural requirements that make such swift action improper.

This marks the second occasion that Judge Hurley has sided against Democratic redistricting initiatives. Earlier in January, he determined that lawmakers illegally approved a constitutional amendment resolution during a special session, violating rules about timing relative to upcoming elections.

While Democrats have appealed that earlier decision to Virginia’s highest court, and the justices initially indicated the referendum could move forward during their review, this new restraining order creates additional uncertainty.

The Virginia dispute stems from a broader national redistricting fight that began when President Donald Trump encouraged Republican-controlled states like Texas to redraw their maps mid-decade, aiming to help the GOP maintain its slim House majority despite typical midterm challenges facing the party in power.

The strategy has sparked redistricting battles nationwide. Republican strategists believe they can secure nine additional seats through map changes in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Meanwhile, Democrats are counting on gaining six seats in California and Utah, with Virginia representing their best opportunity to close the remaining gap needed to flip House control.

SANTA FE, N.M. — New Mexico has made history by becoming the first state in the nation to establish a universal childcare program that covers costs for families at every income level, following through on commitments made by Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.

While parents nationwide struggle with overwhelming daycare expenses that often force them out of the job market, political leaders from New York to San Francisco have been working to expand access to affordable and subsidized childcare options. The political implications are significant as concerns about budget instability and potential fraud create challenges.

Other states have taken different approaches: California has removed copayments for certain families, Washington and Oregon have established payment caps for families, and Vermont uses employer payroll taxes to support childcare subsidies.

New Mexico’s approach depends largely on revenue generated from oil and gas operations, including profits from a newly established $10 billion early childhood education trust fund. This creates a complex situation for a progressive governor who originally sought to limit the industry’s influence.

“I think you’re going to see more states look for ways to do it,” the governor said Thursday. “It’s really a workforce engine, while paying real respect to the affordability affordability crisis that families have.”

With Lujan Grisham’s term ending next year, state legislators concerned about unlimited spending chose a measured approach during the legislative session that concluded Thursday. They maintained flexibility to implement copayments should the state’s financial situation worsen, representing a concession the governor had to accept.

State officials report that an additional $700 million will be directed toward New Mexico’s childcare assistance program over the coming five years. Copayments remain improbable and would require 90 days advance notice to families.

Choices regarding potential cost-sharing will be connected to new yearly reporting mandates. The early education department now has expanded power to oversee childcare providers’ employee compensation, debt management, and business operations.

State Senator George Muñoz, who co-sponsored the legislation, explained that lawmakers took advantage of the chance to establish protective measures.

“We didn’t want to end up like Minnesota, where all of the sudden there was rampant fraud,” he said, referencing federal prosecutors’ claims that billions in federal dollars were misappropriated from Minnesota-administered programs for children with autism, addiction treatment, and other services.

According to Muñoz, families will see substantial benefits, noting that free childcare will increase their disposable income.

Las Cruces resident Marianna Eanone explained that her earnings combined with her husband’s military pay previously exceeded the qualification threshold for childcare assistance. The family previously spent $1,000 monthly for their 3-year-old’s licensed home daycare and after-school care for their kindergarten student.

“It’s been a weight off to not have to worry about that,” said Eanone, who is employed by a program that helps families access child development resources.

She noted they now have financial flexibility for occasional restaurant meals, martial arts lessons for their 6-year-old, increased student loan payments, and future savings.

These advantages connect with voters, according to experts.

“They are sending a really strong signal about the importance of child care to the well-being of the families in the state, the well being of the economy, of businesses,” said Karen Schulman, senior director of child care policy for the National Women’s Law Center.

New Mexico progressively increased income eligibility for childcare assistance before implementing universal coverage on November 1, expanding eligibility to 25,000 additional children. The program saves families an average of $14,000 annually per child.

The New Mexico law permits the state to establish waiting lists when demand exceeds available childcare spaces. This approach aims to ensure priority access for children in challenging situations, including those in severe poverty, children with disabilities, and those facing developmental delays.

The measure also addresses worries that rapidly expanding childcare subsidies across all income levels might reduce availability for low-income families. Legislative analysis showed that participation from low-income families dropped as assistance expanded to higher-earning households.

Elizabeth Groginsky, who leads New Mexico’s early childhood education department, said legislators also preserved funding flexibility for recently approved initiatives to enhance childcare quality, increase minimum wages, and extend operating hours through improved state reimbursement rates.

However, childcare availability remains limited throughout much of New Mexico, even as the state expands assistance beyond working parents to include grandparent caregivers, foster parents, and individuals experiencing homelessness.

Lawmakers have forwarded separate legislation to the governor aimed at increasing home-based daycare and childcare centers in residential neighborhoods by superseding certain local zoning and permit requirements, including homeowner association restrictions on childcare operations.

Former President Donald Trump leveled accusations against Barack Obama on Thursday, claiming the ex-president improperly shared classified details when Obama recently confirmed the existence of extraterrestrial life.

Speaking to reporters while flying to Georgia aboard Air Force One, Trump offered no proof for his assertion but stated Obama crossed a line with his public statements.

“He took it out of classified information … He’s not supposed to be doing that,” Trump declared to the press. “He made a big mistake.”

The controversy stems from Obama’s appearance on Brian Tyler Cohen’s podcast, which aired last Saturday. When the host inquired about whether aliens exist, Obama gave a candid response.

“They’re real, but I haven’t seen them, and they’re not being kept in … Area 51. There’s no underground facility unless there’s this enormous conspiracy and they hid it from the president of the United States,” Obama responded during the interview.

The Nevada-based Area 51 facility has long been the subject of conspiracy theories suggesting the military stores alien remains and crashed spacecraft there. However, declassified CIA documents from 2013 revealed the location served as a testing ground for classified surveillance aircraft.

Obama’s statements showed no signs of drawing from government intelligence briefings or sensitive materials.

The former president expanded on his views in a Sunday Instagram message, writing: “I saw no evidence during my presidency that extraterrestrials have made contact with us. Really!”

In that social media post, Obama explained his belief in alien life by pointing to mathematical probabilities given the universe’s immense size, while noting the unlikely chance of such beings reaching Earth due to vast distances involved.

When reporters asked Trump about his own views on extraterrestrial existence Thursday, he remained noncommittal, saying: “I don’t know if they’re real or not.”

White House officials declined to elaborate beyond Trump’s public remarks, while Obama’s representatives have not yet provided comment on the allegations.

The Defense Department has actively investigated UFO reports in recent years, with top military officials announcing in 2022 that their research uncovered no proof of alien visits or crashes on Earth.

A comprehensive Pentagon analysis released in 2024 examined government UFO investigations dating back to World War II’s conclusion, determining that no extraterrestrial technology has been discovered and that most reported sightings involved common objects or natural occurrences that were misidentified.

President Donald Trump has notified Congress that he’s working on a nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia that eliminates key protections previously deemed essential to prevent the kingdom from developing atomic weapons, according to congressional documents obtained by Reuters.

Both Trump, a Republican, and former President Joe Biden, a Democrat, have collaborated with Saudi officials on plans to construct the nation’s first civilian nuclear power facilities.

This development occurs as global concerns mount over a potential nuclear arms race, following the recent collapse of the final strategic weapons limitation agreement between Russia and the United States, while China continues expanding its nuclear capabilities.

Nonproliferation advocates and numerous lawmakers from both parties – including current Secretary of State Marco Rubio during his Senate tenure – have demanded that any nuclear deal include strict protections. These would prohibit Saudi Arabia from enriching uranium or reprocessing used nuclear fuel, both potential routes to weapons production, requirements that previous U.S. administrations have also supported.

These groups also demand Saudi Arabia accept the Additional Protocol, which provides the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency extensive and intrusive monitoring authority over nuclear activities, including surprise inspections at undisclosed sites.

The Trump administration delivered a preliminary report to congressional committee leaders in November, which the Arms Control Association revealed Thursday is mandated when the government isn’t pursuing the Additional Protocol requirements.

Kelsey Davenport, who leads nonproliferation policy for the Arms Control Association, expressed concern in a Thursday analysis, stating the report “raises concerns that the Trump administration has not carefully considered the proliferation risks posed by its proposed nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia or the precedent this agreement may set.”

Trump’s congressional notification claims the proposed U.S.-Saudi civilian nuclear agreement, called a 123 Agreement, positions American industry as central to Saudi Arabia’s nuclear development while maintaining proliferation protections.

However, the document creates opportunities for Saudi enrichment capabilities by referencing “additional safeguards and verification measures to the most sensitive areas of potential nuclear cooperation” between the nations, specifically mentioning enrichment and reprocessing activities.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s effective leader, has previously stated the kingdom would pursue nuclear weapons if regional adversary Iran develops them.

“If they get one, we have to get one,” the crown prince told Fox News in 2023, explaining such weapons would be necessary “for security reasons, and for balancing power in the Middle East, but we don’t want to see that.”

The White House and State Department have not responded to requests for comment. Saudi Arabia’s Washington embassy also has not provided a response.

Davenport emphasized that “It behooves Congress” to check the administration’s authority to finalize an agreement with Saudi Arabia and “consider not just the implications for Saudi Arabia, but also the precedent that this deal will set, and vigorously examine the terms of the proposed 123 Agreement.”

The Arms Control Association reports the Trump administration could submit the 123 Agreement to Congress as early as February 22, having approximately 90 days following the congressional report to do so. The agreement would take effect and authorize Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear program unless both the Senate and House approve resolutions rejecting the 123 Agreement within 90 days.

Federal officials announced Thursday that their efforts to eliminate diversity initiatives in higher education have resulted in 31 universities terminating relationships with The PhD Project, an organization dedicated to helping racial minorities obtain doctoral degrees.

This nonprofit remained relatively obscure until conservative activists highlighted it last year, prompting the U.S. Department of Education to launch a formal inquiry. Republican leaders argue that university diversity initiatives frequently discriminate against white and Asian American students.

Since the investigation began in March 2025, three dozen institutions have agreed to sever partnerships with the organization, according to the department’s Office for Civil Rights announcement Thursday. Officials report ongoing discussions with an additional 14 educational institutions.

Federal authorities stated that The PhD Project “unlawfully limits eligibility based on the race of participants” and accused partnering institutions of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded educational programs.

“This is the Trump effect in action: institutions of higher education are agreeing to cut ties with discriminatory organizations, recommitting themselves to abiding by federal law, and restoring equality of opportunity on campuses across the nation,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said.

Several institutions quickly terminated their relationships with The PhD Project once the investigation launched, seeking to avoid complications with the current administration. The government had previously warned schools they risked losing federal funding over “race-based preferences.”

The PhD Project represents one of numerous nonprofit organizations working to expand higher education access for underrepresented communities.

“The PhD Project was founded with the goal of providing more role models in the front of business classrooms and this remains our goal today,” the organization said in a statement Thursday. According to their website, the group has “helped more than 1,500 members earn their doctoral degree.”

The 31 institutions identified by federal officials include prominent public research universities like Arizona State, Ohio State and the University of Michigan, alongside elite private institutions such as Yale, Duke and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

MIT, similar to other schools named in the investigation, had paid The PhD Project “a nominal fee” to participate in university fairs or conferences, enabling MIT representatives to recruit prospective students, according to spokesperson Kimberly Allen.

MIT notified federal authorities in April 2025 that it had ceased participating in such events and received notification months later that the Office for Civil Rights had determined a Title VI violation. The institution signed a “resolution agreement” with the department approximately one week ago to settle the issue “but explicitly did not admit any liability, wrongdoing or violation of any law or regulation,” Allen explained.

The University of North Dakota reported that it immediately terminated its membership with The PhD Project two weeks following last year’s investigation announcement.

“The University became a member of the PhD Project to have access to the PhD Project’s member directory and applicant database, to be able to recruit a larger pool of qualified applicants for faculty positions,” spokesperson David Dodds explained in a statement.

The University of Utah participated in annual conferences organized by the nonprofit during the 2024-25 academic year and two preceding years. The institution ended its association with the project in October following a settlement with the department, according to university spokesperson Rebecca Walsh.

Among 170 PhD students accepted into Utah’s business school during the past 14 years, only two came through The PhD Project connection, Walsh noted.

The Education Department reported that all 31 universities have committed to examining partnerships with other organizations “to identify any that violate Title VI by restricting participation based on race.”

The current administration has focused on eliminating various practices it categorizes as diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

WASHINGTON — Gaza’s landscape remains devastated, with whole neighborhoods flattened and fundamental concerns about restoring essential water treatment plants, sewage systems, roadways, power networks and vital infrastructure required to generate adequate food supplies and prevent mass hunger.

Yet a sparkling new national soccer facility for a region ravaged by more than two years of conflict between Israel and Hamas? FIFA says that’s taken care of.

This unexpected commitment emerged during a theatrical and sometimes peculiar political presentation at President Donald Trump’s first Board of Peace gathering in Washington Thursday, where nine nations committed $7 billion for Gaza relief efforts and five additional countries agreed to send military personnel for an international peacekeeping mission.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino explained their reasoning: “We don’t have to just rebuild houses or schools or hospitals or roads. We also have to rebuild and build people, emotion, hope and trust. And this is what football, my sport, is about.”

The international soccer federation committed $50 million for a new venue accommodating 20,000 to 25,000 fans, plus plans for a $15 million FIFA training academy. Additionally, the organization vowed to invest another $2.5 million creating 50 small soccer fields called “arena mini pitches” and five regulation-size fields at $1 million each.

Notably, Gaza lacks its own national soccer squad. A combined Palestinian team represents both Gaza and the West Bank, earning FIFA recognition in 1998 but never reaching World Cup competition.

Infantino emphasized soccer’s broader significance: “Football, or soccer, as it is called here, is the world’s universal language. It’s about hope. It’s about joy. It’s about happiness. It’s about coming together. It’s about uniting the world.”

During his presentation, he displayed a promotional video declaring “A simple ball. A shared field. A reason to believe again,” highlighting how FIFA and the Board of Peace would collaborate to “turn football into a bridge toward peace, dignity and hope.”

The promotional material outlined FIFA’s vision for establishing Gaza soccer competitions across youth, amateur and regional categories, promising a “complete football ecosystem designed to support communities and future generations.”

Infantino has maintained a visible White House presence leading up to this year’s World Cup, co-hosted by the United States, Mexico and Canada. He regularly appears at Trump gatherings during presidential travels, including last month’s Davos, Switzerland appearance when the Board of Peace was officially announced as part of the broader White House-negotiated ceasefire ending Gaza hostilities.

During Thursday’s remarks, Trump repeatedly highlighted Infantino while downplaying the absence of key U.S. allies like Britain and Canada from the board.

Trump observed about board membership: “Virtually everyone is the head of a country,” adding that Infantino is “head of soccer, so that’s not so bad.”

The president told Infantino: “I like your job the best, I think.”

Thursday’s participants received red caps styled after Make America Great Again hats, featuring “USA” in white lettering and “45-47” representing Trump’s presidential terms. Infantino briefly donned his hat alongside other attendees.

Trump mentioned Infantino throughout various unrelated anecdotes, including when comparing his real estate success to special envoy Steve Witkoff’s achievements, and while describing a malfunctioning escalator incident during the fall U.N. General Assembly meeting that Trump suggested warranted arrests.

The president even briefed Infantino about B-2 bombers carrying “very big bombs.”

Trump’s most enthusiastic praise for Infantino centered on FIFA awarding him a peace prize last year, following Trump’s unsuccessful pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize from Norway’s selection committee.

Trump reflected on the situation: “I think they saw that I got screwed by Norway.”