Category: Politics

While the former president won’t appear on ballots this November, three key figures from his administration are seeking gubernatorial seats in what could serve as a measure of his political influence two years after departing office amid declining approval ratings.

Two former Cabinet officials — ex-Interior Secretary Deb Haaland from New Mexico and former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra from California — won their primary elections this week. They’re joined by Keisha Lance Bottoms, a former senior adviser, who claimed the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Georgia last month.

These campaigns unfold as tensions flare among the former president’s supporters, including former White House staff, regarding the Biden family’s return to public attention just months before crucial midterm elections. The former president’s son has been active on social media engaging with both supporters and detractors, while the former first lady discusses the previous presidential campaign in her new book. The former president also plans to release his own memoir later this year.

Whether these White House connections will benefit or damage the Democratic candidates remains uncertain as they transition to general election campaigns.

“I will put my experience to work for the people of our state,” Haaland declared to enthusiastic supporters while accepting her party’s nomination.

However, she omitted any reference to the former president while outlining her background as a single mother, congressional service, and Interior Department leadership.

Former White House staffer Rodericka Applewhaite indicated that some Democrats running this fall are deliberately avoiding requests for campaign assistance from the former president.

Applewhaite has joined other Democratic strategists in publicly criticizing the Biden family’s recent public appearances, particularly the former first lady’s book promotional tour.

“The Bidens are burning a lot of good will that they built up over a very long time in what seems to be days,” she stated, directing a sharp recommendation to the former president and his family. “Step aside and let us have the battles that we need to have today.”

Across California, Georgia and New Mexico, former Biden administration members are handling their White House associations differently.

While Haaland and Becerra emphasize President Donald Trump in their campaign messaging, neither mentioned the former president in their primary victory addresses. Their official campaign websites also exclude his name from their biographical sections.

The former president didn’t publicly endorse candidates in New Mexico or California before Tuesday’s primaries. Democrats have concentrated on attacking Republicans regarding Trump’s presidential tenure.

“It’s laughable that Republicans have become so desperate to avoid talking about Donald Trump that they are now trying to go after our candidates for advocating for their states and getting results when they served in the executive branch,” stated Kevin Donohue, a spokesperson for the Democratic Governors Association. He said Democrats “are focused on affordability” while “Republicans are all in on Trump’s cost-raising agenda.”

Republicans aren’t deterred from emphasizing both candidates’ former supervisor.

Republican strategists plan to highlight Democrats’ Biden administration connections as vulnerabilities in coming weeks, according to Kollin Crompton of the Republican Governors Association.

“Deb Haaland turned her back on New Mexico to push Biden’s failed policies and the Green New Scam. New Mexico deserves a leader, not a career politician who forgot where she came from,” Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, who leads the campaign organization, declared.

Georgia presents a different scenario.

Lance Bottoms features her Biden administration service on her campaign website. She sought and obtained his formal endorsement before Georgia’s primary, sharing it extensively across her campaign’s social media channels. She also expressed willingness to have the former president campaign alongside her this fall. “As I am moving around this state, people are missing Joe Biden more and more each day,” she told CNN.

Bottoms became the first of two candidates the former president has endorsed since leaving office, and he contacted her with congratulations following her May 19 primary victory.

Yet even Bottoms hasn’t emphasized her administration tenure during campaign events. Her standard speech references her mayoral service in Atlanta and prosecutorial background before shifting to topics like affordability and Trump administration policies.

“I spoke with him this morning, so he called to congratulate me,” Bottoms said regarding the former president after her primary win. She then quickly changed subjects. “At the end of the day, we all want the same things. We want to live in great neighborhoods, we want great schools, we want access to health care.”

Public opinion polling showed Americans held less favorable views of the former president’s tenure when he left office compared to the conclusions of Trump’s first term or Barack Obama’s second presidency, according to The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Approximately one-quarter of American adults described him as a “good” or “great” president at that time, with fewer than one in ten considering him “great.”

This data highlighted how damaged his legacy had become, with many from his own party viewing his Democratic presidency as simply adequate.

Americans showed similar likelihood to characterize both him and Trump as “poor” or “terrible” — roughly half applied these descriptions to each president’s service — but about three in ten called the former president “average,” while fewer than two in ten said this about Trump.

The Biden family has encountered renewed examination recently, sometimes from former staff members.

The former president’s son faced criticism for recently appearing on a podcast hosted by far-right conspiracy theorist Candace Owens. He has drawn attention through online posts about his addiction struggles and media critiques.

Former first lady Jill Biden has surprised some Democrats with remarks made during promotional events for her memoir, “View from the East Wing,” released Tuesday. She told CBS News she felt “frightened” by her husband’s performance during the notable debate against Trump. The aftermath ultimately led to his withdrawal from the race.

In her book, she reveals that his senior staff “insisted he needed to run” for reelection. The memoir recounts her husband’s decision to end his candidacy and the family’s response to the former president’s cancer diagnosis last year.

During her book tour, she has fielded difficult questions about the former president’s health and mental capabilities while in office, plus her influence in encouraging his reelection bid despite widespread public doubts.

She called it “heartbreaking” that the Democratic Party turned away from her husband during an appearance on ABC’s “The View.”

“That’s why Joe had to decide to get out, because he had lost the support of the Democratic Party,” she explained.

These statements have triggered disputes among supporters, particularly after former Biden spokesperson Andrew Bates questioned to the New York Post “why that painful conversation for the party needed to be publicly re-opened now.”

The former first lady responded sharply, “I want to say to Andrew, call me up and say it to my face.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — In an unexpected private meeting, OpenAI’s chief executive reached out to Sen. Bernie Sanders this week for discussions about artificial intelligence ownership.

The conversation occurred shortly after the Vermont lawmaker unveiled his proposal requiring the American public to hold a 50% ownership share in AI corporations like OpenAI, with those stocks funding a public wealth program to distribute profits from major AI companies.

During their discussion, the OpenAI leader expressed his own support for public equity in artificial intelligence firms. While the executive indicated he couldn’t back Sanders’ proposed 50% ownership level, he showed interest in collaborating on the broader concept, sources familiar with the talks revealed.

The almost hour-long discussion in Sanders’ Senate office this week, initiated by the OpenAI chief, underscored growing friction between artificial intelligence giants and lawmakers as citizens face mounting costs from AI development while questioning its direct advantages. The situation has also formed unusual political partnerships driven by populist sentiment, with figures ranging from Sanders to President Donald Trump supporting public participation in AI profits.

During remarks to media aboard Air Force One on Friday, Trump outlined a possible collaboration “where the American people can benefit from the success of AI” and announced that top AI company leaders would meet at the White House “probably next week” to explore this concept.

“There’s something very interesting about it, where it almost becomes a partnership with the American public,” Trump, a Republican, stated Friday.

When journalists mentioned to Trump that Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, had suggested public ownership of AI firms, he highlighted similarities between their supporter bases. The economic perspectives of Trump supporters and those who backed Sanders for president, Trump noted, “aren’t that far apart.”

Trump has supported government investment in private enterprises during his second term, reshaping his party’s political stance. His administration previously obtained a 10% ownership in the struggling Silicon Valley firm Intel, and explored a government acquisition of Spirit Airlines earlier this year, though the airline couldn’t finalize an agreement and eventually shut down.

The stances taken by prominent leaders like Trump and Sanders emerge as AI concerns spread well beyond Washington.

In Michigan, Democrats recently disagreed over Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s public appearance with the OpenAI executive at a major data center construction site. Political candidates such as New York Democratic House candidate Alex Bores have also campaigned on AI oversight by addressing voter concerns about the technology.

“This is a real change to society,” the OpenAI leader told media this week. “I think it’s possible both that people can use AI a lot and like using it and also have anxiety about what it’s going to do for the future.”

Data center developments nationwide have faced resistance from communities worried about power usage, water needs and environmental effects. Some states previously eager to welcome these facilities, including Ohio and Virginia, have begun reconsidering tax benefits.

“We need to pass legislation right now that says there’s not going to be any further data center development until they agree to pay for their own electricity, build their own grids and pay for their own water supply,” Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, a prominent Republican critic of Big Tech, told The Associated Press.

Prior to his Washington visit, the OpenAI executive traveled to Michigan on Monday to join Whitmer, a Democrat, at the construction location of a 1.65 million-square-foot data center. Whitmer’s administration stated the development would generate over 2,500 union construction positions.

However, the project also faced criticism from local advocates and some Democrats, including Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who described the project as “disgusting.” She expressed being “so disappointed” in Whitmer.

“It’s a very controversial topic right now and it’s coming from the ground up,” Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat, said regarding the grassroots opposition. “People feel very strongly about it.”

Whitmer, however, told reporters following the event that “one thing’s very clear, everyone has a cellphone in our pocket.”

“We are all, more and more, consuming technology and data and these data centers are going to get built. So, my thought is if we can hold them to a high standard and do it in Michigan, that’s the best way to do it,” she said.

The disputes go beyond data centers. At university campuses, graduation speakers have faced interruptions and criticism when addressing artificial intelligence topics. Approximately 70% of college students view AI as threatening their employment opportunities, based on a 2025 survey by the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School.

The OpenAI executive recognized these worries. He noted that while “the impact on jobs has been less than many people in our field expected,” he comprehends “that college students have a lot of anxiety about the future.”

The belief that AI’s growth cannot be stopped is increasingly accepted by officials across political divisions, despite sharp disagreements about oversight approaches.

This understanding was central to the OpenAI leader’s Washington meetings. Beyond Sanders, he met with Trump administration figures such as Michael Kratsios, the White House’s chief science and technology adviser, and legislative leaders from both parties.

Sanders’ staff stressed that the two did not reach consensus on the senator’s key points presented to the OpenAI executive, including the 50% ownership requirement to ensure public decision-making authority. Sanders also voiced opposition to increasing election expenditures by the AI sector.

“Unfortunately, Sam Altman did not commit to any of those,” said Sanders’ spokesperson Jeremy Slevin.

The OpenAI leader, following their discussion, characterized it as “great,” noting that the two “obviously don’t agree on everything.”

Congress this week unveiled a bipartisan plan that would create the first comprehensive federal AI regulation approach while temporarily overriding numerous state laws.

Anthropic, one of OpenAI’s main rivals, has suggested methods for coordinating development halts on advanced AI if systems become too powerful.

The Trump administration has also started building its own monitoring framework, issuing an executive order to create a review process for national security threats from advanced AI systems before public launch.

Sanders noted the administration’s action was significant after years of warnings that regulation might hinder American innovation.

“Even these guys are beginning to catch on that there are legitimate concerns that have to be dealt with,” Sanders said.

President Donald Trump issued a presidential pardon Thursday for former U.S. Representative Stephen Buyer, who had received a 22-month prison sentence for insider trading violations.

Buyer’s conviction stemmed from illegal stock transactions he conducted in 2018 while serving as a consultant to T-Mobile US Inc during the company’s $23 billion acquisition of Sprint.

The White House made the pardon announcement on Friday.

BOSTON (AP) — A federal court judge ruled Friday in favor of 20 Democratic states, temporarily blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to require states to meet various new conditions in order to receive billions in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program dollars.

U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a preliminary injunction in the case that contested the funding requirements. The contested conditions include limitations concerning “gender ideology,” “immigration,” and “fair athletic opportunities” for women and girls.

The judge indicated he would release a written explanation of his ruling at a later time.

The states contended in their legal challenge that the Agriculture Department has “thrown unconstitutional and unlawful roadblocks between the programs created by Congress and the States that rely on them, threatening critical nutrition support, vital agricultural research, and the safety of our national food chain and communities.”

Government attorneys fought against the preliminary injunction, stating in their legal documents that “these new requirements would help promote the sound stewardship of taxpayer dollars, strengthen USDA’s control and oversight of obligated funds, and ensure that grant recipients comply with federal laws, regulations, and policies.”

SNAP serves as a crucial component of America’s social safety net, providing grocery assistance to approximately 39 million Americans, roughly 1 in 9 people. Recipient numbers dropped by almost 4.3 million between January 2025 and January 2026, based on preliminary government statistics from the Agriculture Department. Analysts attribute the decline primarily to new requirements established by a comprehensive tax and spending reduction measure that Republicans advanced through Congress last summer.

A federal court has stopped the Department of Agriculture from cutting off billions in federal funding to states that won’t follow Trump administration policies on immigration enforcement and transgender issues.

U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a preliminary injunction on Friday after attorneys general from 20 states and Washington D.C. challenged the funding requirements. The judge, who was appointed to the Boston federal court by President Joe Biden, said he will release a detailed explanation of his decision later.

“These grants are a lifeline — I’ll always fight to protect food assistance for families,” Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell wrote on her Bluesky social media account following the court victory.

Neither the Justice Department nor the Department of Agriculture provided immediate responses when asked for comment.

This court decision represents another legal setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to tie federal grant money to the Republican president’s policy agenda.

The coalition of states and the capital district argued that the new Trump requirements threatened Congressional funding designed to provide meals for low-income families and support agricultural producers. States receive over $74 billion each year from the Department of Agriculture.

Late last year, the Department of Agriculture announced that states would need to verify compliance with federal “policies” to continue receiving funding. The attorneys general claimed this requirement was unclear and would force states to follow unrelated directives from Trump executive orders addressing “gender ideology,” immigration matters, transgender athletes, and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

According to the plaintiffs, the Department of Agriculture’s new conditions could impact nutrition assistance including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the food stamp program, school meal programs, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. They argued the Department of Agriculture exceeded its authority by imposing these new requirements, which they claim violate the Constitution’s Spending Clause and were implemented without following proper legal procedures.

The Trump administration maintains that since states must follow federal antidiscrimination laws and regulations to receive funding, the same principle should extend to other “policies.”

The lawsuit is titled Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., vs. U.S. Department of Agriculture, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under case number 1:26-cv-11396.

Legal representation for the states includes Nita Klunder from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, Vikas Didwania from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, and Brian Bilford from the California Department of Justice. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is represented by Michael Fitzgerald from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Xavier Becerra has secured his position in California’s general election for governor on Friday, following a campaign where he promoted his extensive background as the best choice to govern the country’s largest state by population and take over from the current Democratic governor.

Drawing upon his extensive career spanning more than three decades in government roles — including positions as the state’s top legal officer and federal health secretary — Becerra made the case that his qualifications surpassed those of other candidates in the competitive race.

“I am ready to lead the fight to uphold California’s promise to make sure we have the governance worthy of our gifts,” he stated during his election night remarks.

The identity of Becerra’s opponent in the upcoming general election remains uncertain. His primary competition included Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator who received backing from President Donald Trump, and Democrat Tom Steyer, a wealthy environmental advocate who invested $215 million of his personal funds into his bid.

Initially, Becerra’s political effort struggled to build momentum in its early stages. However, circumstances shifted when a leading Democratic candidate, Rep. Eric Swalwell, faced allegations of sexual misconduct and withdrew from the contest, creating space for Becerra to unite Democratic voters behind his candidacy.

Becerra has pledged to continue California’s role as a primary opponent to President Donald Trump’s policies. In his previous role as attorney general, he initiated over 120 lawsuits against Trump’s first presidency, challenging policies ranging from immigration enforcement to environmental regulations.

Throughout the campaign, opponents questioned his performance as health secretary during the coronavirus outbreak and the crisis involving unaccompanied migrant children in 2021, when his department oversaw facilities housing these minors. Critics pointed to substandard conditions at some locations and inadequate screening of potential guardians for these children.

Should he win the election, Becerra has announced plans to issue emergency declarations targeting expensive energy costs and housing availability while implementing a moratorium on home insurance rate increases.

Despite California’s reputation as one of America’s most ethnically diverse states, nearly every previous governor has been a white male. Becerra’s election would mark the first time a Latino has held this position since the 1800s.

Current Governor Newsom cannot run again due to constitutional term restrictions preventing a third consecutive term.

California Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui has secured her position on the November general election ballot following a primary contest against a younger member of her own party.

The 81-year-old representative successfully defended her congressional seat after being challenged by Mai Vang, a Sacramento City Council member. Matsui has served in Congress since 2005, when she took over the Sacramento-area district following the death of her husband, former Rep. Bob Matsui.

Her primary battle represents part of a broader pattern this election cycle, with several veteran Democratic lawmakers facing challenges from younger candidates seeking to unseat them. The identity of her November opponent remains undetermined as vote counting continues.

The California primaries are playing a crucial role in shaping the upcoming fight for control of the House of Representatives, while also measuring whether Democrats can capitalize on five potential seat gains following successful redistricting efforts last year.

Democratic leaders promoted the redistricting initiative as a response to Republican map-drawing strategies in GOP-controlled states like Texas, where boundaries were redrawn to favor conservative candidates.

Prior to Tuesday’s voting, Democrats expressed concern that California’s unique primary system could backfire on them. The state’s format advances the two highest vote-getters to the general election regardless of party affiliation, raising fears that Democrats might be excluded from districts they specifically designed to favor their candidates.

Those worries proved unfounded in one key race, as San Diego City Councilwoman Marni von Wilpert successfully advanced to face Republican Jim Desmond, a San Diego County supervisor, in a suburban San Diego district. However, Democrats still face the possibility of being shut out in another district located in Sacramento’s surrounding areas.

In a separate redrawn district spanning Orange and Riverside counties in Southern California, Republicans maintain an advantage. GOP Rep. Ken Calvert has earned his spot in the November election for the 40th District, though his opponent has yet to be determined. Calvert endured a challenging primary battle against fellow Republican Rep. Young Kim, who was placed in a new district containing areas Calvert previously represented due to Democratic redistricting efforts.

San Francisco saw a different outcome, where a well-funded progressive candidate failed to secure one of the top two positions for retiring Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s seat. State Sen. Scott Wiener and San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan will compete to succeed the former House speaker.

In the Central Valley region, Republican Rep. David Valadao, considered among the most at-risk House Republicans, awaits word on whether he will face centrist Democrat and Assemblywoman Jasmeet Bains or progressive political science professor and school board member Randy Villegas this fall.

Multiple contests remain undecided due to California’s characteristically lengthy vote-counting process, where mail-in ballots from traditionally Democratic areas are tallied later, often reducing early leads held by conservative candidates on election night.

Trump previously used the extended counting period to make unfounded fraud allegations and repeated those claims Thursday, stating his Justice Department would launch an investigation into the state’s procedures. A federal prosecutor visited Los Angeles’ primary vote-counting facility on Friday.

A former cabinet secretary from the Democratic party, Xavier Becerra, is expected to qualify for California’s November gubernatorial election following this week’s primary voting, according to projections from U.S. news organizations announced Friday.

The projection comes after Tuesday’s primary election results in California, with media outlets analyzing the vote totals to determine which candidates will advance to the general election in the fall.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles announced Friday they have launched “multiple election fraud investigations” concerning California’s ongoing election process and dispatched a prosecutor to observe the county’s ballot counting facility.

These actions followed President Donald Trump’s unfounded allegations of widespread fraud in California’s extended vote tallying from Tuesday’s primary election. Mail-in ballots that typically favor Democratic candidates were still being processed, reducing vote margins for the president’s endorsed candidates seeking the governor’s office and Los Angeles mayor positions.

The statement from U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, who was appointed by Trump as the chief federal prosecutor for Los Angeles, along with the visit to the county’s ballot processing facility, represents an intensification of the president’s efforts against the Democratic-controlled state. California’s traditionally lengthy counting process has frequently attracted election conspiracy theories. Trump reiterated his concerns Friday during a roundtable event in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, making unsubstantiated claims that Democrats were manipulating the election.

“You look at what’s happening — it’s getting tighter and tighter and tighter,” he said. “And the people who were supposed to win, bad things are happening. It’s a crooked state.”

Trump has frequently characterized shifts in vote counts as late ballots arrive as evidence of fraud, though these changes simply reflect the ongoing counting of additional ballots.

Trump announced Thursday that his Department of Justice was examining the California counting process. By Friday morning, Essayli posted on X regarding active investigations without offering specifics, stating only that California’s elections contain “serious structural vulnerabilities.”

A federal prosecutor arrived at the primary ballot processing facility Friday morning, according to Mike Sanchez, a spokesman for Los Angeles County’s Registrar-Recorder. The attorney “was provided an overview of the public observation program, and participated in a walkthrough of the ballot processing operations,” Sanchez said.

He noted that “election officials routinely host observers representing a wide range of interests.”

This marks the second time Trump’s Justice Department has focused on California’s electoral process. Last fall, federal observers monitored polling locations in five counties, including Los Angeles, during the special election regarding changes to California’s congressional districts.

Republican Steve Hilton, Trump’s preferred gubernatorial candidate, also called Friday for major reforms to California’s election procedures, including restricting mail ballots to only voters who specifically request them instead of automatically sending them to all registered voters. He also proposed requiring Election Day delivery rather than the current seven-day acceptance period for ballots postmarked by the voting deadline.

Hilton acknowledged in an interview that federal prosecutors might possess information his campaign lacks, though his team has monitored the count without observing anything appearing unlawful.

“We certainly haven’t seen anything of that nature that would warrant legal action,” Hilton said.

Nevertheless, Hilton characterized the slow counting process as making California “a national and international laughingstock.” He suggested the state deploy emergency teams of government workers to California’s 58 counties to accelerate vote tallying.

Jesse Salinas, president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officers, said he appreciated Hilton’s willingness to assist but deemed the proposal ineffective.

“It’d be more disruptive than helpful at this point,” said Salinas, who also serves as clerk and registrar for Yolo County.

Any individual handling ballots or counting equipment would require training from the same personnel working intensively to process mail ballots received Tuesday. Additionally, Salinas explained, his vote-counting facility has reached capacity with no space for extra personnel.

Hilton, endorsed by Trump, is competing against two Democrats for one of two positions on the November ballot. Reality television star Spencer Pratt, another Trump-backed candidate, is similarly vying with City Councilwoman Nithya Raman for the opportunity to face Mayor Karen Bass in the November election.

Since Democrats typically vote by mail and retained their ballots unusually late in this crowded primary, their votes are frequently counted after those of Republican-leaning voters who may have voted earlier. This pattern means Republican candidates often reach their peak performance in initial election night results, only to watch their advantages diminish over subsequent days or weeks as election workers finish processing late-arriving mail ballots.

Five FBI intelligence analysts were terminated Friday for their involvement in developing a controversial 2023 report that warned about potential violent threats from certain Catholic groups, according to three sources with knowledge of the dismissals.

The terminated employees included four intelligence analysts and one supervisory analyst, sources said. All sources requested anonymity since they were not permitted to publicly discuss personnel decisions. The FBI refused to provide comment on the matter.

The intelligence report was produced by staff at the FBI’s Richmond, Virginia office in January 2023 and quickly became a source of political controversy. Congressional Republicans frequently referenced the document as evidence supporting their claims that the FBI under the previous administration was unfairly targeting conservative Americans.

Former director Chris Wray consistently rejected those accusations, and the bureau stated the report was rapidly withdrawn while an internal investigation was initiated. The attorney general under President Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, stated he was “appalled” by the document.

These dismissals represent part of extensive staff changes implemented by Director Kash Patel, a Trump administration ally who has removed dozens of personnel over the past year. Those dismissed either participated in investigations involving the president or were viewed as incompatible with current administration priorities. The Justice Department has conducted similar widespread terminations of prosecutors since Trump assumed office last year.

In February, the FBI dismissed several counterintelligence agents who had worked on the investigation examining President Donald Trump’s possession of classified materials at his Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida.

The Richmond document, which originated from a domestic terrorism inquiry, attempted to analyze potential connections between “Radical Traditionalist Catholic” beliefs and extremists motivated by racial and ethnic hatred. The report warned about possible violence and identified what authors characterized as “new avenues for tripwire and source development.” FBI leadership swiftly criticized these conclusions after the document became publicly known.

An internal FBI examination detailed in a 2023 congressional letter, based on interviews with 26 individuals, “found that all individuals involved in the creation, review and approval of the product failed to adhere to analytic tradecraft standards and failed to recognize that the product, as drafted, equated the subjects’ interest in their self-described form of religion with racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist (RMVE) ideology without sufficient evidence or articulable support.”

The failure to follow proper standards, including correct domestic terrorism terminology, “created the appearance that the FBI conducts investigative activity based on religious affiliation,” the letter stated. “One of the FBI’s most fundamental principles is that investigative activity may not be based solely on the exercise of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

A Justice Department inspector general report from 2024 summarized the previous FBI examination by noting that while there were violations of proper analytical procedures, “no evidence of a malicious intent or an improper purpose” were discovered.

MS NOW previously reported on the terminations.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump released a directive Friday instructing the nation’s military and security agencies to rapidly expand their artificial intelligence capabilities while emphasizing the importance of safeguarding constitutional rights and ensuring human oversight of autonomous weapons.

The directive emerges during a period of heightened concern about AI’s role in American life, spanning from workplace displacement fears to its application in military target identification. While the Trump administration pushes to harness AI’s potential for defense purposes, military officials and Pentagon contractors have expressed caution and advocated for protective measures.

The presidential directive was distributed to key Cabinet members, including the defense secretary, homeland security secretary, attorney general, and national intelligence director.

The order mandates an updated policy on autonomous weapons to address AI’s rapidly advancing capabilities. It instructs the Department of Defense “to ensure the deliberate adoption of AI systems that respect the chain of command and operational authorities.”

The existing policy, established in 2023 during the Biden administration, requires such weapons to be designed “to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force,” as documented by the Congressional Research Service.

The new directive also prohibits using AI to “censor free speech, embed ideological bias, or conduct unlawful surveillance against the American people.”

“The use of AI by the national security enterprise must always be consistent with United States civil liberties and protections afforded by the Constitution and laws and regulations safeguarding the privacy of American citizens,” the directive states.

The Pentagon has already been expanding AI implementation in recent years. The technology assists in reducing target identification and engagement timeframes while supporting routine operations like equipment maintenance scheduling, supply chain management, and logistics coordination.

However, civil liberties protection and human control over autonomous weapons have generated increasing concern. These issues became central to a conflict that developed this year as the Pentagon attempts to utilize American technology companies to enhance military AI capabilities.

Anthropic requested contractual guarantees that the military would not employ its technology for fully autonomous weapons or domestic surveillance. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated the company must permit any Pentagon uses deemed lawful.

Anthropic filed a lawsuit after Trump attempted to ban all federal agencies from using the company’s chatbot Claude, and Hegseth moved to classify the company as a supply chain risk, a designation designed to prevent foreign adversaries from compromising national security systems.

Military AI concerns intensified during Israel’s conflict with militants in Gaza and Lebanon, where American tech companies quietly supported Israeli target tracking efforts. The substantial civilian casualty count raised fears that these technologies contributed to innocent deaths.

Military leaders speaking at a special forces conference in Tampa, Florida, discussed AI benefits alongside the necessity for human safeguards.

Adm. Frank Bradley, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, told conference participants that forces “have to be very careful about how we come to (AI’s) employment and its inspiration into the delivery of lethality.”

Bradley described envisioning a future where AI selects targets but emphasized that “we, as humans, have to have the confidence that … it’s going to deliver violence only where we intend it to be delivered.”

WASHINGTON — The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has begun filling with water following renovations completed under President Donald Trump’s direction, which featured coating the pool’s interior in a darker hue Trump described as ‘American flag blue.’

The refilling process marks the completion of the renovation project that transformed the appearance of the iconic memorial pool.

WASHINGTON – The leading Democrat on the U.S. Senate Banking Committee has raised serious questions about alleged bias and outside meddling at a key federal financial regulator.

Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter Friday to Michael Selig, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, expressing alarm over recent New York Times coverage that detailed claims of improper interference and preferential treatment for cryptocurrency and prediction market businesses.

Warren’s correspondence to Selig, who became chairman in December and currently serves as the only active commissioner on the typically five-person panel, referenced Times reporting and other coverage suggesting agency officials stepped in to help firms connected to Trump allies while retaliating against employees who resisted such efforts.

The CFTC did not provide an immediate response to requests for comment Friday. When contacted by The Times previously, the White House stated that President Trump has no conflicts of interest in these matters.

Under Trump’s leadership of the CFTC, cryptocurrency firms and prediction market operators have seen significant benefits, including the withdrawal of enforcement cases against these sectors and the development of regulations designed to encourage industry expansion.

However, lawmakers are increasingly examining the prediction market industry over potential insider trading violations.

The agency’s workforce has declined dramatically from last year to levels not seen since the 2008 financial crisis, while enforcement actions have similarly decreased.

“Taken together, these are concerning signs of a CFTC beholden to political pressures and interests of the wealthy insiders, unbound by the rule of law and failing to protect investors and market integrity,” Warren wrote.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts will no longer display President Trump’s name, according to new directives given to facility staff.

Personnel at the performing arts venue have been instructed to strip the former president’s name from the center’s official designation.

WASHINGTON — Federal government attorneys told a court Friday that judicial intervention cannot halt the ongoing construction of a White House ballroom, citing both the project’s advanced status and security considerations the facility is designed to address.

During arguments before the U.S. Appeals Court, attorney Yaakov Roth told Judge Patricia Millett that only Congress possesses the authority to stop the $400 million construction project. The administration is seeking court permission to continue building the ballroom without legislative approval.

The dispute stems from an April 16 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who ordered the administration to cease above-ground construction on the 90,000-square-foot ballroom. Leon, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, permitted underground work to proceed on bunker facilities and other security infrastructure at the location.

Friday’s hearing focused on questions of legal standing to challenge government actions after they’ve commenced and whether such standing supersedes national security interests.

When Millett, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, presented hypothetical scenarios, Roth acknowledged that even if the government demolished iconic structures like the Statue of Liberty and the White House, affected parties would lack legal standing to challenge such actions after completion.

Millett questioned Roth about when the ballroom construction became irreversible.

“Was it when you started doing the underground work, which is now totally completely integral and connected and inseparable from a massive ballroom on top?” she inquired. “When did it become impossible for courts to stop this project?”

Roth responded: “I think it would have been improper to enjoin it even on Day One.”

This exchange was among many during the two-hour session before the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The judges concluded the hearing without issuing a ruling.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed their lawsuit in December, one week after the White House completed demolition of the East Wing to create space for a ballroom designed to accommodate 999 people.

Predicting the judges’ decision remains difficult. While Roth faced extensive questioning about the administration’s authority and evolving explanations for proceeding, plaintiff attorney Tad Heuer also encountered significant judicial scrutiny.

The panel pressed Heuer regarding legal standing and how aesthetic concerns might outweigh national security considerations.

“We have never opposed the underground construction of the bunker, which is where the government until recently has said the national security concerns lay,” Heuer stated. He argued that construction should pause pending congressional review.

“Congress can allow ballrooms to be built — it’s its property,” Heuer said.

Administration lawyers maintain the project incorporates vital security elements designed to counter various threats, including drones, ballistic missiles and biological hazards.

“These upgrades, alterations, and improvements are essential to protecting the President, his family, and his staff, as well as the White House itself, and the entire project flows from them,” they stated in court documents.

Two key figures in President Donald Trump’s administration made a trip to a Tennessee nuclear research facility this week as part of preparations for potential negotiations with Iran, according to a source with knowledge of the visit.

Special envoy Steve Witkoff and the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner visited Oak Ridge National Laboratory on Thursday to meet with specialists who could contribute to future nuclear discussions with Iran, the source revealed Friday.

The source, who confirmed details from an Axios report, did not elaborate further on the specifics of the meeting.

The Trump administration has made clear that any agreement to resolve the conflict with Iran must include guarantees that Tehran will abandon nuclear weapon development efforts.

Intelligence estimates suggest Iran currently holds approximately 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium at facilities that were targeted in U.S. airstrikes last year. Iranian officials continue to insist they need uranium enrichment capabilities while rejecting claims they are pursuing weapons development.

WASHINGTON — Congress stands ready to deliver a massive financial boost to the Department of Homeland Security, providing nearly unrestricted funding to support President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement initiatives throughout his presidency.

The approximately $70 billion funding measure passed the Republican-controlled Senate during an overnight session and is now moving to the House. Democratic leadership condemned it as a “rotten bill” while immigration advocacy groups labeled it an “ATM for ICE.”

For supporters of Trump’s pledge to conduct the nation’s largest immigration enforcement operation in history, the legislation ensures steady financial resources for the administration’s immigration activities. This comes in addition to roughly $170 billion Congress previously authorized for the department last summer as part of Trump’s comprehensive tax legislation.

“We’re going to continue to arrest people, we’re going to continue to detain people and we’re going to keep deporting people,” Trump border czar Tom Homan told CBS News on Friday.

He suggested that enforcement sweeps might target New York City during the summer months.

This congressional action occurs during a crucial period for the Republican president and his party as they prepare for midterm elections with an increasingly concerned electorate. An AP-NORC poll from April revealed that roughly one-third of American adults personally know someone affected by Trump’s immigration policies. As the nation marks its 250th anniversary, polling shows most Americans no longer view the country as welcoming to immigrants.

The funding legislation spans just twelve pages and lacks the typical oversight provisions and spending guidelines usually included in such measures. It allocates $30 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities, nearly $20 billion for Border Patrol operations, and other amounts, covering departmental expenses through 2029.

“Their options are limitless in terms of what they can do with this money,” said Vanessa Cardenas, the executive director at America’s Voice, a longtime advocacy organization for immigrants.

“That is such a hard thing to accept as a taxpaying citizen that our dollars are going to this massive, mass deportation machine, while Americans are struggling to meet health care costs, and have access to food and they’re paying so much in gas.”

The administration has attempted to reframe discussions around its immigration policies, bringing in new Homeland Security leadership following violent enforcement incidents earlier this year and the fatal shootings of Americans Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.

Instead of conducting highly visible street operations, the administration is pursuing behind-the-scenes measures that eliminate immigrant communities’ legal pathways to remain in the United States, including ending Temporary Protected Status and creating additional barriers to obtaining green cards.

Young immigrants known as Dreamers, who arrived in the U.S. illegally as children, have experienced processing delays for their Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals renewals, potentially leaving them vulnerable to removal.

However, demonstrations continue across the country, including protests regarding conditions at the Delaney Hall detention center in New Jersey.

Simultaneously, Homeland Security continues expanding its ICE workforce — scheduling a recruitment event in Florida next month — constructing additional detention centers, and establishing partnerships with international governments to accept individuals being removed from the United States.

In an official statement, the department indicated that Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin are “laser focused on ensuring the hardworking men and women” of ICE and Customs and Border Patrol receive full funding. The statement characterized the congressional package as ensuring “our critical national security operations continue despite any Democrat attempts to hold our great patriotic employees hostage in the future.”

Standard congressional funding measures typically span hundreds of pages and include detailed specifications regarding expenditure methods and implementation schedules.

Congress traditionally exercises its constitutional spending authority to provide administrative oversight and limitations.

However, after Democrats blocked Homeland Security funding earlier this year following the Minnesota violence, Republicans responded by utilizing the budget reconciliation process to advance the package independently, bypassing regular appropriations procedures.

Both political parties have employed this same mechanism previously, including for Trump’s 2025 tax reduction legislation.

“All this important oversight doesn’t happen,” said Bobby Kogan, a former staff member of the Senate Budget Committee and now at the Center for American Progress, a think tank.

During the overnight Senate session, Democrats attempted to assert congressional authority by proposing amendments to maintain legislative input. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, for example, sought to protect “Dreamers” from deportation while their DACA renewals face delays. These efforts were unsuccessful.

The administration faces significant pressure to fulfill its commitment to increase annual deportations to approximately 1 million, following the Republican president’s first-year figures that fell below expectations.

Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, leads the Mass Deportation Coalition that encourages the Trump administration to honor its commitments.

“Everyone’s talking about ICE is going to get another massive cash injection, and that’s not how I see it at all,” he said. “They’re getting like life-support money.”

“We’re not asking them to keep going,” Howell said. “We’re asking them to start.”

Howell indicated there’s minimal possibility the Trump administration will achieve the president’s deportation targets unless it abandons its focus on pursuing what it terms the “worst of the worst.”

His organization released a proposal earlier this year recommending broader enforcement operations targeting immigrants, especially in employment settings. He also advocates for the Trump administration to restrict immigrants’ access to banking services, social programs, and driver’s licenses. Congressional Republicans have introduced legislation addressing some of these areas.

The administration has intensified its messaging and recently launched a website that refers to immigrants as “aliens” — using space-themed imagery — while outlining White House efforts to prevent individuals from remaining in the United States.

President Donald Trump announced Friday his intention to have Bill Pulte, his newly appointed acting director of national intelligence, downsize the agency, which has already undergone significant reductions during his current administration.

Speaking to reporters while traveling to Wisconsin, Trump expressed his belief that the agency’s staffing levels have been “way too high for way too long” and indicated his support if Pulte decides to implement cuts.

“Bill Pulte is very good, he’s very talented,” Trump commented during his flight aboard Air Force One. In a separate conversation with The Wall Street Journal, the president revealed he has already requested that Pulte begin terminating employees.

During his discussion with the Journal, Trump confirmed he has already shared his perspective with Pulte, who previously led the Federal Housing Finance Agency but lacks experience in national security matters.

“I’d like to see it smaller. I think there are a lot of people in there that shouldn’t be there,” Trump stated, referring specifically to intelligence officials who worked during the administrations of Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama, according to the Journal.

Trump explained to the publication that he wants Pulte to initiate the dismissal process, with the eventual permanent intelligence director continuing the effort. The president has signaled he will not put Pulte forward for formal nomination to the permanent role.

“Frankly, it might be good for him to shake it up before people come,” Trump explained. “Because, if he (Pulte) reduced the size, in conjunction with me … and in conjunction with possibly the person coming in … he can do a lot of the hard work and we wouldn’t have to saddle somebody that goes in.”

The president selected Pulte for the role earlier this week in an unexpected decision that has faced opposition from both parties in the Senate, which must approve presidential appointments. This interim assignment has complicated efforts to renew an important national security surveillance program on Capitol Hill, with Democrats crucial to the vote expressing distrust of Pulte — whose position supervises 18 intelligence organizations — to help manage the surveillance initiative.

Before Pulte’s appointment, his predecessor Tulsi Gabbard had already begun reducing the office’s scope. Last August, the administration announced plans to decrease the office’s annual budget by over $700 million while dramatically reducing personnel numbers.

During that announcement, Gabbard characterized the office as having become “bloated and inefficient” as she revealed the approximately 40% staff reduction.

Gabbard stepped down from her position last month following her disclosure of her husband’s cancer diagnosis.

BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday invalidated a Trump administration immigration measure implemented following an incident where two National Guard members were shot, which created additional barriers for immigrants from dozens of nations seeking to remain in or enter the United States.

In a decision that severely criticized the administration, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. stated the measure “threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo,” and he charged the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with disregarding existing law.

“In enacting its latest immigration policies, USCIS: claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of ‘national security’ that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making,” he wrote. “In legal terms that means USCIS’s actions are contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The measures put in place following the National Guard shooting incident last year resulted in immigrants from 39 African, Asian, Latin American, and Middle Eastern nations being “categorically barred” from obtaining final determinations on their asylum, work authorization, green card, and citizenship petitions, among other applications.

“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs in the case. “These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum-seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives.”

The measures affect U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which processes petitions for immigrants seeking work authorization and citizenship. The agency, operating under the Homeland Security Department, frequently approves asylum claims, but only for individuals already present in the United States when filing. Immigration judges handle asylum cases for those detained at the border; the court decision does not impact them, nor do the measures that led to the litigation.

This represents part of a continuing push by the administration to strengthen U.S. entry requirements for travel and immigration, which opponents argue unfairly blocks travel for individuals from numerous nations. The administration indicated it would broaden the limitations following the detention of an Afghan national suspect in the shooting incident involving two National Guard personnel during Thanksgiving weekend.

In its dismissal motion, which the court rejected, the government contended that Congress provided the executive branch extensive authority over immigration matters, including “the entry of aliens into the United States as well as discretion within the statutory scheme to confer as well as withdraw various discretionary benefits.”

“This case rests on a remarkable premise: that a federal court should prevent an agency from issuing the very policy guidance that provides government personnel with the guardrails necessary to ensure consistent, non-arbitrary, and individualized decisionmaking consistent with federal law,” the government wrote in its brief.

Immigration advocacy organizations praised the court’s decision.

“This ruling sets a powerful precedent that the administration cannot ignore the law as laid down by Congress and cannot arbitrarily bar immigration benefits on the basis of national origin by fiat,” Jamal Abdi, president at the National Iranian American Council, said. “Fortunately, this is still a nation of laws, and those who uphold America’s values have recourse to challenge and push back on such discriminatory, arbitrary policies.”

Shawn VanDiver, a Navy veteran who heads a coalition that supports Afghan resettlement efforts called #AfghanEvac, said the ruling was a “significant victory for the rule of law and for thousands of Afghan allies and other immigrants who followed every requirement asked of them.”

“Just this week in Dallas and Fort Worth, we met people who feared losing jobs because delayed work permit renewals threatened their livelihoods, families who postponed education, travel, and homeownership because they did not know when their cases would be resolved, and future Americans who had expected to become citizens only to see their applications stall without explanation,” VanDiver said.

Eight of the 15 Latin Americans who were sent to Congo in April as part of the Trump administration’s controversial immigration enforcement have now made their way back to their countries of origin, according to Congo’s government and legal representatives speaking Friday.

Federal immigration courts had previously determined these individuals would probably encounter persecution upon return to their home nations.

Congo represents one of no fewer than eight African countries that have entered into third-country deportation agreements with the United States.

Through a collection of frequently undisclosed agreements, the Trump administration has sent thousands of individuals to almost two dozen nations other than their countries of origin, according to advocacy groups. Legal experts in immigration law indicate the administration employs third-country deportations as a regulatory workaround to indirectly compel asylum seekers to return to their native countries.

Alma David, a U.S.-based attorney representing one of the 15 migrants, confirmed that eight deportees have traveled back to their home countries in recent weeks.

David’s client, a Colombian woman who had previously spoken with The Associated Press about her circumstances and uncertainty while in Congo, continues to remain in the central African nation, according to her lawyer.

Another Colombian, Adriana Maria Quiroz Zapata, also remains in Congo, despite a federal judge’s order last month directing the Trump administration to return her to the United States. She was sent to Congo even after that country had declined to accept her due to its inability to provide for her medical requirements.

Four individuals from Peru and three from Colombia traveled home earlier this week with assistance from the International Organization for Migration, a U.N.-affiliated agency, David reported.

Their return occurred through the IOM’s Assisted Voluntary Return program, where the organization covers transportation expenses and logistics for migrants who agree to return to their home countries, serving as an option instead of forced removal.

The attorney explained that these migrants had received court protections preventing their removal to their home countries by U.S. federal courts, which determined they would probably experience persecution upon return.

“The fact that they chose to return there anyway raises serious concerns that they likely felt backed into a corner because no viable alternative was presented to them,” David said.

The IOM has stated that assisted voluntary returns are “strictly voluntary and based on free, prior and informed consent.”

One Colombian man traveled back to his home country independently in recent days, David noted.

“These developments confirm the strictly transitional, temporary, and time-limited nature of this mechanism, as announced from its launch,” the Congolese government said in the statement. “Further departures will take place shortly as part of the implementation of the arrangement.”

This announcement coincides with rights attorneys filing a case against Equatorial Guinea before Africa’s leading human rights body, alleging the central African nation violated deportees’ rights by compelling them to return to their home countries from the U.S.

WASHINGTON — Military leaders continue awaiting clear direction from Pentagon leadership after President Donald Trump’s shifting decisions regarding European troop deployments have disrupted service members’ lives and potentially cost American taxpayers millions, according to two U.S. defense officials who spoke with The Associated Press.

European NATO partners were confused in May when Trump announced plans to deploy 5,000 U.S. service members to Poland, coming just weeks after he directed the same number withdrawn from Europe following tensions with Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz regarding the Iran conflict. Trump administration officials maintain that European troop reductions have been long-term plans developed in coordination with partner nations.

The Republican commander-in-chief posted on social media two weeks prior that he would deploy forces to Poland — on the identical day Pentagon leadership had formally directed the cancellation of a scheduled soldier rotation to that location, according to one defense official.

Military equipment for the unit was already in transit. Transporting it required $32 million in military spending, according to U.S. Transportation Command, the defense agency primarily responsible for global troop and equipment movement.

These sudden policy shifts are requiring military leadership to “retroactively engineer” policies matching the president’s most recent statements, the official explained. Both officials received briefings on these decisions and, alongside others, agreed to speak anonymously when discussing classified military operations.

This confusion is not only concerning European partners who worry about signals being transmitted to Russia, but also threatens to damage confidence among American service members — including some whose deployments were halted just before departure — while occurring during existing Army budget pressures.

The scheduled Poland deployment of 4,000 service members from the Army’s 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, was halted through a military memo distributed at May’s beginning. European partners learned about this decision during the month’s middle period.

Several troops received notification shortly before travel not to board Poland-bound flights, while those already deployed — initially approximately 1,000 service members — remain awaiting confirmation about their return, according to a U.S. military official.

Military leadership also continues awaiting Pentagon specifics regarding how to fulfill Trump’s directive to deploy 5,000 troops to Poland, that official stated. Current planning assumes these forces will come from units already stationed in Europe, rather than additional U.S.-based deployments, the official noted.

U.S. Transportation Command had contracted shipping to transport the team’s equipment from Texas to Poland and return departing unit gear to America. The incoming team’s transportation cost totaled $32 million, including ship charter and equipment loading and unloading operations.

Since the ship was contracted to transport one unit to Europe and return another to America, determining potential savings from an earlier deployment halt decision remains difficult.

Nevertheless, the military official indicated that unplanned personnel and equipment returns from Europe likely exceed Pentagon budget allocations and represent additional expenses.

Complete rotation cancellation costs remain difficult to calculate due to multiple variables, explained Joe Costa, a former senior Pentagon official who currently directs the Atlantic Council’s Forward Defense program focusing on U.S. military challenges.

Costs likely stem from returning equipment and troops deployed ahead of the main deployment and would probably represent the lower end of the rotation’s total expense, Costa stated. The more significant impact affects troop readiness when personnel trained for specific missions may receive different deployment assignments, he explained.

U.S. military contracts with private transportation companies include cancellation provisions that frequently impose additional charges when deployments are terminated, according to John Deni, a senior nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council who has researched such expenses.

“The question is what additional costs were incurred by deciding to send them back prematurely, changing the arrangements, changing the plan?” asked Deni, a former U.S. military adviser and planner specializing in European forces.

Whether the Pentagon can recover those costs or expenses related to the unit’s European movement remains unclear. The Defense Department declined to answer questions regarding deployment plan change costs, and the White House directed comment requests to the department.

Pentagon leadership has consistently stated plans to reduce troop numbers to encourage Europe to assume greater defense responsibilities and described the decision as part of a “comprehensive, multilayered process.”

Last month’s memo also resulted in canceling a Germany deployment for a battalion specializing in long-range rocket and missile operations.

When Trump initially threatened European troop reductions of 5,000 personnel, Pentagon officials first suggested withdrawing the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, permanently stationed in Germany, the defense official stated.

Instead, officials chose to cancel the other unit’s Poland rotation. Then Trump’s subsequent decisions created additional confusion for that plan as well.

Withdrawing Germany-stationed troops could cost in the low billions since no dedicated U.S. space and infrastructure exists to house them and their families, Costa explained.

“The other option is basically breaking up the unit,” Costa noted. “They move the equipment in different places. They move the people to different places. That carries significant readiness costs because now you’re artificially jamming pieces of units into places where they don’t necessarily belong.”

Withdrawal or deployment pauses can also damage soldier and family morale since they plan for these assignments months and years ahead, Deni observed. The uncertainty creates disruption.

“That’s often the last thing you want to do to military families,” Deni stated.

What will happen to European-stationed U.S. troops remains uncertain, both officials indicated. Options include relocating military units assigned to Germany to Poland, but that could require several years and increased costs, the military official explained.

These changes occur while the Army faces budget shortfalls, which the service’s top uniformed officer, Gen. Christopher LaNeve, recently acknowledged to Congress.

Estimates place the deficit between $2 billion and $6 billion, according to an Army official who also spoke anonymously to discuss sensitive defense matters. One consequence has included reducing nationwide soldier training courses, which ABC News previously reported.

In a statement, the Army indicated it has provided guidance to its commands to “make tough and sound resource decisions that optimize and prioritize resources toward their most critical requirements, to include major training and readiness events.”

The Army official also noted the service has received missions including National Guard deployment in Washington, increased U.S.-Mexico border presence and its Iran war participation — all straining its budget.

The Department of Homeland Security expects to reimburse the Army for border mission costs.

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll told lawmakers at a May 15 hearing that he was “optimistic” there would be progress on those payments “within a week or two.” However, the Army has not yet received reimbursement.

“We want those backfilled payments,” Driscoll stated then.

The European U.S. military is also reducing non-combat training support and strictly prioritizing essential functions, the military official noted.

Federal immigration authorities have eliminated a policy requiring them to track and report deaths of individuals who die shortly after being released from detention centers, a move that medical experts say could hide the true impact of detention conditions on human lives.

The change removes a 2021 requirement established during the previous administration that mandated Immigration and Customs Enforcement to investigate and report to Congress any deaths occurring within 30 days of a detainee’s release from custody.

The original policy was designed to prevent the agency from escaping responsibility for deaths by releasing critically ill individuals from their facilities. In previous cases, people who were brain-dead or battling serious infections have died shortly after being released from immigration detention.

Medical professionals who have studied deaths in immigration custody condemned the policy shift on Friday.

“Tracking deaths immediately after custody is a standard approach that allows health systems in jails, prisons and immigration detention to learn about gaps in care that may occur before a person leaves a facility,” said Dr. Homer Venters, former chief medical officer of the New York City jail system. “Eliminating reporting of these deaths represents a willful act of ignoring the most serious health outcome that can reflect inadequacies in care or help track outbreaks.”

Records indicate that immigration detainees frequently die at medical facilities where they are transported for care after their health deteriorates while in detention centers. These individuals, though, have typically been classified as still being under agency custody.

The Washington Post initially disclosed the policy modification on Thursday. The Department of Homeland Security, which supervises the immigration agency, subsequently acknowledged the change in a statement describing it as “common sense.”

“Under this updated policy, when an individual is no longer in ICE custody then ICE will no longer be responsible for monitoring or reviewing deaths that may occur,” the statement said.

The statement indicated the agency maintains its dedication to transparency and noted the revised policy contains procedures for “timely notification, review and reporting of deaths occurring in ICE custody.” The agency has not yet released the complete updated policy.

The decision to restrict death reporting occurs as more immigration detainees are dying. A minimum of 18 detainees have died since January 1, a rate that could exceed last year’s death count, which marked the highest in twenty years. Detainees are taking their own lives at record levels, and specialists believe many other deaths from medical causes could have been prevented with proper healthcare.

Dr. Sanjay Basu, a University of California-San Francisco epidemiologist who recently published an analysis of more than 270 ICE custody deaths, said the policy change will “make the mortality statistics appear lower without any actual improvement in care.”

“The period immediately following release is when deaths attributable to inadequate care during confinement become apparent,” he said. “Missed diagnoses, interrupted medications, untreated infections, and decompensating chronic conditions don’t always kill someone while they’re still in the building.”

As of early April, the agency was housing more than 60,000 detainees throughout its nationwide detention facility network, an increase from approximately 40,000 at the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term. The agency disputes claims that detainees experience medical neglect, stating they receive comprehensive healthcare services.

Prior to announcing Thursday’s policy modification, Department of Homeland Security acting assistant secretary Lauren Bis informed the Associated Press on Tuesday that no detainees died in agency custody during May. This marked the first month without a detainee death since November. At that time, Bis did not respond to questions about whether any death reporting policies had been altered.

“As we have repeatedly stated, deaths in ICE custody are exceedingly rare,” she said then.

WASHINGTON — The federal government’s financial crimes enforcement division has issued new guidance directing banking institutions to monitor for suspicious financial activities connected to individuals without legal immigration status, marking another step in the current administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network — known as FinCEN — released guidance on Friday instructing financial institutions to monitor for identity theft, payroll tax fraud, and money laundering operations connected to the employment of unauthorized workers.

The advisory follows President Donald Trump’s executive order from May requiring banking institutions to conduct enhanced reviews of customer citizenship status.

The directive instructs banking regulators and federal agencies to identify indicators that individuals lacking legal status may be establishing accounts or securing loans and credit cards. The order proved less stringent than financial institutions had anticipated, as previous reports indicated the administration was considering mandatory citizenship data collection requirements.

While avoiding broad-scale exclusion of entire population groups from banking services, the order and recent advisory work to limit financial system access for those residing in the country without authorization.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that the Trump administration “will not allow illegal aliens to abuse financial institutions to steal billions of dollars from hardworking American taxpayers.”

“Schemes to pay unlawful workers often rely upon access to the U.S. financial system, including U.S. banks,” he said.

Given that banking institutions have historically not gathered citizenship or immigration status data from customers, no dependable public statistics exist regarding the financial system risks these customers may present.

The financial services sector had conducted intensive lobbying efforts for months to prevent the administration from implementing an executive order mandating citizenship status collection, contending such requirements would prove costly and create extensive administrative burdens. With the order providing guidance rather than requirements, it appears the banking industry successfully influenced the administration’s approach.

The advisory identifies more than twelve warning signs that financial institutions should monitor to identify individuals potentially residing in the country illegally.

A federal court has overturned immigration policies implemented during President Donald Trump’s tenure that prevented individuals from dozens of nations from receiving final determinations on their asylum requests, work authorization, permanent residency, and naturalization petitions.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell, presiding in Providence, Rhode Island, determined on Friday that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had put in place a collection of illegal policies that specifically targeted individuals from 39 nations across Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.

The invalidated policies had prevented people from countries included in the travel ban from obtaining final rulings on their immigration applications and requests for legal status in the United States.

In an early morning vote Friday, the U.S. Senate approved funding for President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement operations, concluding weeks of political standoffs and intense opposition to a controversial settlement fund that nearly blocked the measure.

Additionally, Trump announced Thursday that federal housing finance regulator Bill Pulte, whom he selected as acting director of national intelligence, will not serve as his “permanent” selection for this crucial security role after lawmakers from both parties criticized Pulte’s limited national security background in recent days.

Employment data released Friday by the Labor Department showed job creation decreased modestly last month compared to a revised figure of 179,000 positions added in April. The jobless rate remained steady at a low 4.3%.

The employment sector has shown signs of improvement this year following a challenging 2025, demonstrating resilience despite elevated energy costs and growing economic instability after the United States and Israel launched attacks against Iran in late February.

Employment gains have rebounded this year after a difficult 2025, displaying surprising resilience amid economic uncertainty and severely high energy costs resulting from the Iran conflict.

The previous occasion when Washington, D.C., voters selected both a new congressional delegate and mayor in a single election cycle, gasoline cost $1.33 per gallon and George H.W. Bush occupied the White House.

This autumn, they will repeat this process under dramatically different conditions.

With the city approaching crucial primary elections this month to select nominees for these positions, President Trump’s impact on the nation’s capital is emerging as a significant campaign topic. The new group of candidates is considering the best strategy for dealing with Trump’s Republican administration and congressional oversight of the predominantly Democratic city’s operations.

“It’s going to be a big sea change in city politics, no matter how the elections shake out,” said Amanda Huron, a professor at the University of the District of Columbia who teaches courses on D.C. history and politics. But Washington’s lack of full autonomy brings “all sorts of peculiarities around the city’s governance.”

Trump, who has long supported the New York Knicks, announced his intention to attend an NBA Finals match at Madison Square Garden next week following an invitation from the team’s owner.

Calling himself a “big fan” of both the team and owner James Dolan, Trump revealed Thursday that he will attend at least one game next week. The NBA considers this would mark the first time a sitting president has attended an NBA Finals game.

“The answer is yes — he’s invited me, I’m going,” Trump said regarding Dolan’s invitation. While speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, Trump indicated he was considering Game 3 on Monday but didn’t eliminate Game 4 on Wednesday. “Maybe I’ll do both.”

Trump, who is managing a war in Iran, congressional tensions, and approaching midterm elections, mentioned he ensured he watched portions of Game 1 on Wednesday when the Knicks defeated the San Antonio Spurs and gained a 1-0 series advantage.

Water started flowing back into the recently restored Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on Thursday, Trump revealed from the Oval Office.

During an unrelated event, Trump displayed a video showing water flowing into the newly painted basin located at the base of the Lincoln Memorial.

“That’s clean, beautiful water,” the president stated.

Live footage displayed water collecting in the basin’s center, with workers and vehicles still present inside the pool area.

Trump mentioned the project to paint the shallow basin in a dark color, which he refers to as “American flag blue,” was finished Wednesday. The administration indicated in a legal document that the pool would be completely filled with water by Sunday at the latest.

Trump also revealed plans to construct a “promenade” that would enable visitors to walk from behind the Lincoln Memorial to the Potomac River.

Trump stated Thursday that federal housing finance regulator Bill Pulte, his selection for acting director of national intelligence, will not become his “permanent” choice for this vital security position.

The Republican president’s announcement that he was eliminating Pulte from permanent consideration followed bipartisan criticism on Capitol Hill recently regarding Pulte’s insufficient national security credentials. The role requires Senate approval, which legislators suggested was improbable if Pulte became the official nominee.

“He’s not going to be permanent because, you know, I don’t think he’d want to be permanent,” Trump stated while answering questions in the Oval Office following a coal-related event. He described Pulte as a “very smart guy” and mentioned he might examine previous elections that Trump alleges, without reliable proof, were “rigged” against him.

The Senate approved measures to fund Trump’s immigration enforcement operations early Friday, following weeks of postponements and intense opposition to an unrelated $1.776 billion settlement fund that nearly prevented the bill’s passage.

Lawmakers voted 52-47 to approve the $70 billion measure funding Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol for the next three years, extending through Trump’s term, after Democrats had prevented the funding for months. The legislation will now proceed to the House, which is anticipated to consider it next week.

The final vote occurred just before 5 a.m., after Republicans narrowly rejected several attempts by members from both parties to include provisions in the bill that would permanently prohibit Trump’s settlement fund for supporters who claim they’ve faced political persecution.

Illinois state legislators have passed legislation that would permit minors to obtain birth control without requiring parental consent. The Democratic governor, J.B. Pritzker, has indicated his intention to sign the bill into law. Pritzker has been a strong advocate for abortion rights and, working alongside a supportive legislature, has pushed to establish Illinois as one of the nation’s most abortion-friendly states. The state has also positioned itself as a destination for women traveling from states with more restrictive abortion laws who seek to terminate their pregnancies.

Legislation passed by New York lawmakers would substitute gender-neutral language for traditional parental terms throughout the state’s legal code. The measure, now awaiting approval from Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul, would eliminate “mother” from all state statutes in favor of “gestating parent.” Similarly, “father” would be replaced with “non-gestating parent” under the proposed changes.

The initiative has faced pushback from conservative officials in the state. State Conservative Party Chairman Gerard Kassar criticized the proposal, describing it as “Woke culture run amok. It’s an example of how out of tune the New York legislature is. It’s an unnecessary and wasteful use of time.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — When Washington, D.C., voters last selected both a congressional delegate and mayor in a single election cycle, gasoline cost $1.33 per gallon and George H.W. Bush occupied the White House.

They’re preparing to make those choices again this autumn — in dramatically altered conditions.

With the district approaching crucial primaries this month to select nominees for these positions, President Donald Trump’s impact on the federal city has become a dominant campaign theme. Candidates are evaluating the best strategies for dealing with Trump’s Republican administration and congressional oversight of the predominantly Democratic municipality’s operations.

“It’s going to be a big sea change in city politics, no matter how the elections shake out,” said Amanda Huron, a professor at the University of the District of Columbia who teaches courses on D.C. history and politics. But Washington’s lack of full autonomy brings “all sorts of peculiarities around the city’s governance.”

Following Trump’s return to the presidency last year, the National Guard maintains an indefinite presence as part of what he describes as a crime-fighting initiative. He’s placing his personal mark on the capital’s historic monuments. Additionally, significant federal workforce reductions have intensified economic challenges for the city, which faces one of the nation’s highest jobless rates.

The district has historically maintained a complex, often tense relationship with federal authorities: Although residents elect local officials, Washington’s federal district status restricts their actual influence over municipal matters. This already constrained independence has faced additional pressure under Trump and his federal law enforcement intervention, which began last year.

This autumn, sitting council members Janeese Lewis George and Kenyan McDuffie lead the competition to succeed Mayor Muriel Bowser, who won election in 2014. The primary contenders seeking to replace longtime congressional Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton are Robert White Jr. and Brooke Pinto, both serving on the D.C. council.

Primaries scheduled for June 16 will determine these positions, which in the heavily Democratic city typically determine November’s winners.

Washington differs from other municipalities in lacking control over its destiny.

Voter options exist through a restricted home rule compact approved by Congress in 1973 that permitted residents to choose their local government officials.

However, Congress maintains authority over municipal matters, including budget approval and laws enacted by the city council. Congressional representatives elected by constituents thousands of miles distant regularly propose measures affecting city operations.

This arrangement requires local officials to navigate constituent pressures alongside congressional and administrative demands — a balancing act Bowser repeatedly faced.

Throughout Trump’s initial presidency, she directed the creation and designation of Black Lives Matter Plaza, located north of the White House, in 2020. Months following Trump’s second-term inauguration, she consented to its removal following pressure from congressional Republicans.

This action, federal workforce cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency, and increased federal law enforcement and National Guard deployment have become key election themes. Currently, approximately 3,500 troops operate in the city — a figure officials expect will reach 5,000 as the nation’s 250th anniversary celebrations near.

Trump has consistently claimed his intervention has transformed Washington into “one of the safest” and most attractive cities nationwide, experiencing a significant crime reduction.

George told The Associated Press that her primary focus involves tackling “the affordability crisis here in D.C., which the Trump administration has only made worse by unjustly firing federal employees en masse and militarizing our streets.”

McDuffie identified public safety as his main concern as crime remains problematic. He proposes adding 1,000 police officers across four years, fully staffing the 911 call center following years of persistent understaffing, and implementing a public health approach to violence prevention.

“We cannot have an affordable city,” he said, “without public safety as its foundation.”

Both candidates pledged to strengthen the city’s legal protections against federal interference and criticized Bowser for excessive cooperation with federal authorities targeting the city’s immigrant population.

Alex Dodd, co-founder of Free DC, an activist group supporting city independence, said the organization endorsed George because of her willingness to be more aggressive in opposing Trump and congressional Republicans.

“When our leaders comply with this administration before being forced, they are giving this regime an enormous advantage,” he said.

Pat Wheeler, a native Washingtonian and communications consultant who served as a department head at Morgan State University, applauded Bowser for cooperating with the Trump administration on some aspects. She noted failure to do so could have sparked retribution and a loss of what little control city officials have.

“Trump can snap his finger and the whole Republican Congress will say, ‘Let’s put a federal control board over the mayor,’” she said.

The D.C. delegate position carries no voting power, but provides the district’s nearly 700,000 residents, who lack other congressional representation, a platform through House floor speeches and legislation proposals.

However, critics argued the 88-year-old Norton became less effective during Trump’s second administration and insufficiently visible in challenging administrative and congressional interference with city autonomy. She submitted paperwork ending her reelection campaign in January.

Norton, serving 18 terms, has maintained a distinguished career. Both she and her predecessor, Walter Fauntroy Jr., achieved national prominence emerging from the civil rights movement.

“Eleanor Holmes Norton is maybe one of the last major political figures who comes out of the civil rights movement,” said Matt Dallek, a political historian at The George Washington University. “It’s a real passing of the torch.”

Campaigns for her replacement have emphasized local autonomy, Trump’s influence, and affordability concerns. Leading candidates and council members Pinto and White have also engaged in personal disputes questioning campaign funding sources and Republican connections.

Pinto told the AP her primary objective involves self-governance, which has “never been a true reality for the people of D.C.”

She identified affordability for middle-class and working families as another priority.

White’s campaign stated he’s “not willing to continue to see our tax dollars used to allow DC police to cooperate and conspire with federal agents to trample our constitutional rights and to terrorize our communities.”

Brenda Manley, a longtime resident of Ward 7, an area with a storied Black history across the Anacostia River, said the city was well managed despite the tensions with Trump. But she said she hoped all the candidates would spend more time on the campaign focusing on programs that are beneficial to all residents, like a tuition grant program championed by Norton or major strides made in education during Bowser’s tenure.

“Those type of programs matter,” Manley said.

WASHINGTON – A critical foreign surveillance program is heading toward expiration next week after the U.S. Senate failed to advance renewal legislation on Friday.

The chamber voted 47-52 against proceeding with debate on reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is set to lapse on June 12 without congressional intervention. Seven Republicans crossed party lines to join Democrats in opposing the procedural motion, with only Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman supporting it.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune expressed disappointment that nearly all Democrats voted against moving forward with the debate. The outcome represents a major blow for Republicans, who hold slim majorities in both congressional chambers.

Democratic opposition centers on President Donald Trump’s decision to name Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence, citing his absence of national security credentials.

Thune indicated the Trump administration may need to evaluate whether Pulte’s appointment is hindering efforts to extend the warrantless domestic surveillance authority, which lawmakers previously extended for 45 days on April 30.

“Next week, it gets real,” Thune told reporters. “A few days from now … the program goes dark. I just think that would be a dangerous mistake for the country. Hopefully, responsible folks will come to the table and at least help us figure this out.”

While acknowledging the timing of Pulte’s appointment “arguably wasn’t the best,” Thune maintained, “I still don’t think it ought to derail something that’s this important.”

This legislative defeat adds to a series of instances where some Senate Republicans have resisted various Trump proposals, including his request for $1 billion to construct a 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom and create a $1.776 billion fund for compensating political allies who claim government mistreatment.

Public polling indicates limited support for such initiatives as voters seek Washington action on rising inflation rates, partly attributed to the United States’ conflict with Iran that has disrupted global oil transportation.

A federal appeals court will decide Friday whether the Trump administration can move forward with a controversial $400 million ballroom project at the White House, in a legal battle that tests the boundaries of presidential power.

The dispute centers on the administration’s decision to demolish the East Wing of the White House complex and replace it with a massive 90,000-square-foot ballroom without obtaining Congressional authorization.

The East Wing historically served as workspace for the first lady and her staff within the White House grounds in Washington.

Last year, the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit challenging the project after the administration demolished the East Wing in October 2025 and started construction on the ballroom facility.

The ballroom initiative represents part of a larger effort by the Republican leader to transform the architectural landscape of government buildings and monuments throughout central Washington.

The case will be argued at 9:30 a.m. EDT before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a influential federal court positioned just below the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who was nominated by Republican former President George W. Bush, has issued two separate orders halting above-ground construction while permitting underground work to proceed.

Leon ruled that no federal law even “comes close to giving the President” the necessary authority to build the ballroom without Congressional approval.

The appeals panel reviewing the administration’s challenge consists of Democratic-appointed D.C. Circuit judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia, along with Trump-appointed Judge Neomi Rao. Last month, the appeals court issued an order permitting construction to move forward during the ongoing litigation without deciding the case’s underlying merits.

The administration has defended the ballroom project as essential for national security, pointing to recent assassination attempts against Trump.

“The East Wing Project answers that critical security need, and ensures that the President can fulfill his constitutional duties in a safe and heavily secured facility,” the Justice Department argued to the appeals court in May.

Historic preservation advocates dispute this reasoning. The National Trust for Historic Preservation argues that the D.C. Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court have never permitted a president to “usurp powers vested in Congress by the Constitution based on nothing more than his claim of necessity.”

In court documents, the organization stated that “the public has a strong interest in pausing a project that will irreparably damage what is perhaps the most significant historic site in the country.”

Trump’s broader redevelopment plans also include constructing a 250-foot arch near the National Mall, the landscaped area stretching between the U.S. Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial, plus renovating the Kennedy Center performing arts facility.

A federal judge issued an order last week requiring Trump to remove his name from the Kennedy Center building and preventing his plans to shut down the venue for renovations.

Trump has announced that his planned ballroom is expected to be completed around September 2028.

The nation’s highest court delivered twin victories to federal regulators Thursday, reinforcing the authority of two key agencies while maintaining previously established boundaries on government oversight.

In separate decisions, the nine justices sided with both the Federal Communications Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission, turning away attempts to further restrict regulatory powers beyond limits already in place.

The court’s conservative majority issued Thursday rulings that supported the FCC’s penalty system and upheld the SEC’s extensive authority to reclaim unlawful profits through a financial tool known as disgorgement.

Georgetown University law professor David Super characterized the outcomes as “small, largely technical wins” for both agencies.

“These cases should be understood as the court telling Congress and administrative agencies that, if they adhere to the rigid limits on public regulation in its prior decisions, the court will not come back and move the goalposts,” Super said.

President Donald Trump’s administration supported both agencies throughout the legal proceedings.

WIRELESS CARRIERS DEFEATED

The FCC prevailed in an 8-1 decision that dismissed a legal challenge from telecommunications giants AT&T and Verizon. The dispute centered on whether the agency’s internal enforcement system violates constitutional jury trial rights, following a 2024 Supreme Court decision that restricted the SEC’s in-house proceedings in SEC v. Jarkesy.

The justices Thursday dismissed arguments from AT&T and Verizon that the Jarkesy decision should apply similarly to FCC operations.

However, the court emphasized that financial penalties from the agency, called forfeiture orders, don’t prevent companies from challenging the fines in court.

“The court didn’t take the opportunity to expand the reach of its prior decision in Jarkesy, but it also stressed that companies have no legal obligation to comply with the FCC’s forfeiture orders until a jury weighs in,” University of Michigan Law School professor Daniel Deacon said.

Deacon expressed no surprise at either the result or the Trump administration’s defense of agency authority.

“The Trump administration knows that it can use the administrative state for its own ends, and it hasn’t uniformly opposed agencies’ claims to authority,” Deacon said.

SEC AUTHORITY PRESERVED

A unanimous 9-0 decision strengthened the SEC’s disgorgement powers, supporting an expansive interpretation of one of the financial watchdog’s primary enforcement tools.

The central question involved whether the agency must demonstrate that victims experienced financial harm, or pecuniary loss, before seeking the return of illegal profits.

Defendant Ongkaruck Sripetch had urged the court to expand a previous ruling while challenging a court order requiring him to return over $3 million in unlawful gains and interest from a financial fraud case. The 2020 Liu v. SEC decision had restricted disgorgement to net profits from the questionable conduct.

Thursday’s ruling determined that the Liu decision didn’t support Sripetch’s challenge against the SEC.

Jose Lopez, an attorney at Dorsey & Whitney and former SEC lawyer, said the court’s decision “preserved one of the SEC’s most potent weapons in its enforcement arsenal.”

The court has previously limited federal agency authority through several significant rulings.

Recent years have seen the court establish a conservative legal theory called the major questions doctrine, granting judges broad authority to strike down executive agency actions with “vast economic and political significance” unless Congress clearly authorized them.

In another setback for federal regulatory authority, the court in 2024 eliminated a landmark 1984 precedent that had deferred to U.S. agencies when interpreting the laws they enforce. This principle, known as “Chevron deference,” had faced long-standing opposition from conservatives and business groups.

Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal legal organization that supported the SEC and FCC in their cases, described Thursday’s decisions as victories for the regulators and “everyone who benefits from these agencies being able to do their jobs.”

“While this court has a history of favoring big business interests and making it more difficult for federal government agencies to do their jobs, today’s decisions are a reminder that it’s not always possible to predict what this court will do,” Gorod said.

Following a significant Supreme Court decision, advocates for protecting the voting power of racial minorities find themselves with fewer tools at their disposal.

The ruling has substantially narrowed the pathways available to safeguard minority voting rights, leaving activists and lawmakers to explore alternative approaches at the state level.

Among the remaining options are state-level voting rights legislation and strategic redistricting efforts, particularly in states with Democratic leadership. These approaches represent some of the few mechanisms still available to protect the electoral influence of minority communities.

The Supreme Court’s decision has effectively weakened federal protections that previously served as key safeguards against racial discrimination in voting and redistricting processes.

WASHINGTON, June 5 – The U.S. Senate voted Friday to approve legislation that would allocate $70 billion in additional funding for immigration law enforcement activities, including President Donald Trump’s deportation initiatives.

The measure now awaits consideration by the House of Representatives before it can become law.

John Bolton, who served as President Trump’s national security adviser and has since become an outspoken opponent of the former president, has reached an agreement to enter a guilty plea for improperly handling classified materials.

WASHINGTON — Senators are conducting an all-night session to advance legislation funding President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement operations while Democrats and certain Republicans attempt to insert provisions permanently preventing Trump from establishing a $1.776 billion settlement fund.

During Thursday’s proceedings, Republicans defeated a Democratic proposal to eliminate the fund, designed to provide compensation to the president’s supporters who claim they faced political persecution. However, additional amendments were expected overnight, with Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana announcing plans for another attempt to stop the settlement.

These amendment votes tested party loyalty and posed risks to the immigration spending legislation, as multiple Republicans have consistently opposed the fund. The initial settlement vote remained open for approximately three hours while several GOP senators deliberated their positions.

“I feel optimistic that we’ll get there in the end,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., stated Thursday evening, though he admitted uncertainty about the voting outcomes.

For weeks, Thune has urged GOP colleagues to maintain focus on funding Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, which Democrats have obstructed since early this year, while avoiding additional provisions that might complicate approval.

Should an amendment restricting the settlement succeed, Thune indicated it would create difficulties when transmitting the legislation to the House. Such action could also trigger a White House veto of the immigration spending measure, which has otherwise united Trump and Republicans.

When the Senate previously modified a Homeland Security funding package in March, the House rejected the changes and adjourned.

Trump’s judgment fund, established through a settlement resolving his lawsuit against the IRS regarding leaked tax returns, has frustrated numerous Republican senators.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced this week that the fund would not proceed. However, Trump, who has clashed with Senate Republicans recently, created fresh uncertainty about the settlement’s status Wednesday afternoon — immediately after the Senate voted to begin immigration bill debate — when he informed reporters the settlement is “very important” and stated “I don’t know” whether it remains dormant or canceled.

“I’d have to ask the lawyers,” he commented.

The Senate defeated a second amendment Thursday from Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina that would have similarly prohibited the settlement fund while transferring funds to a separate anti-fraud program at the Department of Justice. Most Democrats opposed the amendment, ensuring its failure, though over 10 Republicans backed it.

Tillis argued the settlement fund, which could potentially benefit Trump supporters who assaulted police and stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, creates political problems for the party.

“If Blanche says this is largely inoperative, why not use this moment to codify that?” Tillis questioned. “Otherwise, you’re exposing every one of our members who are in cycle to having to deal with this between today and Election Day, and that makes no sense for something that the DOJ says they’re not moving forward with.”

Republican voting patterns on future amendments remained uncertain.

Cassidy, who lost reelection last month after Trump supported his primary challenger, confirmed plans to propose an amendment banning settlement payouts. He informed reporters he might also introduce an amendment blocking a separate settlement component granting Trump and his family immunity from IRS audits.

Multiple Republican senators expressed support for the concept but required review of final language before deciding. Sen. John Cornyn, who also lost reelection last month following Trump’s endorsement of his opponent, said he supports the “thrust of it” but would await the amendment text. Republican Sen. John Curtis of Utah expressed similar sentiments.

Thune stated his belief that the final legislation should pass without settlement prohibition language.

“This is about border funding,” Thune explained. “It’s about law enforcement, it’s about ICE and CBP. So I’m trying to, you know, keep it about the main thing.”

Democrats continued proposing amendments throughout the night, addressing Trump’s tariffs, his conflict with Iran, and his immigration enforcement operations.

“Amendment after amendment, vote after vote, Republicans are going to have to answer to the American people,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer declared at the day’s start.

Approving the approximately $70 billion measure funding ICE and Border Patrol would conclude the Democratic blockade that demanded policy modifications following fatal shootings of two protesters by federal agents in January. The legislation would provide three-year funding through Trump’s term conclusion.

Senate Republicans are employing complex procedural tactics to circumvent the filibuster and approve the budget legislation without Democratic support. However, bringing the bill to the Senate floor required weeks as Republicans addressed various passage obstacles created by Trump and the White House — including a $1 billion proposal for White House security and Trump’s ballroom that they ultimately abandoned, plus intense bipartisan opposition to the settlement fund.

Democrats maintain that any Homeland Security Department funding should impose restrictions on federal immigration authorities, including improved officer identification and increased judicial warrant usage, among other demands.

Following federal agents’ shooting of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Trump accepted a Democratic request separating the Homeland Security bill from broader spending legislation that became law. Bipartisan negotiations stalled, and department funding expired in mid-February without agreement on Trump administration immigration enforcement modifications.

Congress eventually funded remaining Homeland Security Department operations in late April with Democratic backing, but ICE and Border Patrol continued operating without regular funding.

President Donald Trump’s administration has unveiled plans for new tariffs targeting 60 nations that Washington claims aren’t doing enough to eliminate forced labor from their trade goods, but specialists and advocacy organizations warn the approach may backfire in the fight against modern slavery.

The proposed import duties of 10% to 12.5% represent the administration’s newest trade action, emerging from a Section 301 investigation into unfair trade practices by the U.S. Trade Representative’s office. The initiative aims to reinstate Trump’s emergency tariffs after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned them in February.

However, trade specialists and human rights advocates question whether this strategy will meaningfully address widespread problems including child labor, forced labor, and other exploitative work conditions throughout global supply chains.

“The essence of this new measure has very little or anything to do with forced labour. It’s just a new justification for trade tariffs,” said Ram Ben Tzion, co-founder and CEO of digital shipment-vetting platform Publican.

Data from the International Labour Organization shows 27.6 million individuals currently work under forced labor conditions globally – representing a 2.7 million increase since 2016. Export-focused industries including manufacturing, construction, agriculture, fishing, and mining account for nearly half of all private sector forced labor situations.

The administration’s case against the European Union has attracted significant attention, given the trade relationship between the two partners. Washington’s report criticized the EU’s Forced Labour Regulation, scheduled to take effect in December 2027, arguing it establishes stricter evidence requirements than American standards and mandates officials demonstrate substantial concern before taking action.

European Commission officials called the tariffs unjustified while reaffirming their dedication to last year’s trade agreement with Washington that limits U.S. tariff rates on most EU products to 15%.

The international human rights organization Walk Free has determined that no G20 nation is adequately addressing forced labor relative to their economic capacity. According to Walk Free’s findings, the U.S. ranks among the top 10 countries with the highest numbers of people living under modern slavery conditions.

Andrew Wilson, Deputy Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Commerce, expressed concern about what he called the “arbitrary nature” of the proposed tariffs.

“It doesn’t make sense if the object of this is to enhance controls on modern slavery,” Wilson stated, noting that planned EU measures would eventually surpass U.S. regulations once implemented. “The EU regime may ultimately have broader market reach because it covers imports, products sold in the EU, and exports from the EU.”

Sebastian Ruenz, an ESG and supply chain specialist at law firm Taylor Wessing, disputed Washington’s characterization of EU frameworks as inadequate. The EU prohibition applies to forced labor products from any global location, regardless of their country of origin.

“It will be structurally far more comprehensive than the U.S. law,” Ruenz explained, highlighting that Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act and France’s comparable legislation have already created national forced labor standards.

Even advocates who generally support import restrictions as tools against modern slavery expressed doubts about tariffs designed around trade volumes rather than exploitation severity achieving substantial progress.

Hélène de Rengerve, senior advocate for corporate accountability at Human Rights Watch, pointed out that the most severe forced labor systems – including state-imposed programs in China’s Xinjiang region, Turkmenistan’s cotton industry, and North Korea – aren’t the main focus of these tariffs, which instead reflect trade volumes and geopolitical factors.

“It is also not clear how will this be an incentive to actually improve the situation,” de Rengerve said. “It might even create more political resistance in some countries. I fear it might be counterproductive to the objective of fighting forced labour.”

RENO, Nev. — For the first time in a decade and a half, Nevada’s sole Republican House seat is up for grabs, setting up a primary battle that will gauge whether GOP voters prefer seasoned political experience or fresh faces with President Donald Trump’s endorsement.

After Republican Rep. Mark Amodei declared his retirement this year, an opportunity emerged in the state’s 2nd District, encompassing all of northern Nevada. Former state Sen. James Settelmeyer has gained support from Amodei and Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, while retired Lt. Col. David Flippo — who lacks elected office experience but secured Trump’s endorsement along with key MAGA movement figures — presents the alternative. Voters head to the polls Tuesday.

The district heavily favors Republicans in voter registration, and political observers are monitoring the contest for insights into Trump’s ongoing sway over party members as he navigates the latter portion of his final presidential term. Nevada Democrats acknowledge the challenging path ahead but plan to compete for the seat, believing Flippo might prove more vulnerable due to his Trump connections potentially alienating independent voters in swing county Washoe, which includes Reno.

With nearly twenty years of legislative and state government experience, Settelmeyer emerged as an early favorite upon joining the race. However, Flippo rapidly drew attention after switching from a southern Nevada congressional campaign. He established residency by renting a home to pursue the seat and brought endorsements from prominent conservative organizations like Turning Point Action, established by the late political activist Charlie Kirk.

Following both candidates’ efforts to demonstrate their Trump connections, the former president endorsed Flippo last week. Settelmeyer had previously served as a co-chair of Trump’s 2024 Nevada campaign.

“I love the State — The People are special! I will never let you down and, with David Flippo, I am just adding to that Statement,” Trump wrote on his social media platform.

Both candidates have concentrated on economic issues, water resources, and land management — particularly significant in Nevada where federal ownership encompasses most of the state’s territory — and share similar policy positions. Consequently, their backgrounds and personal qualities have become central campaign themes.

Financial adviser Flippo joined the race after prominent Nevada conservative leaders chose not to run, arguing the contest required a “strong conservative.”

His campaign strategy has targeted Settelmeyer’s legislative history, particularly his support for legislation permitting undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.

“I’m strong on my values, I’m stronger on the conservative principles, and I don’t have the voting record,” Flippo stated in a recent interview.

However, Settelmeyer contends his legislative background demonstrates his grasp of state issues and governance capabilities. His service spans both the Senate and Assembly, plus his role as director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. He has committed to maintaining regular travel between Nevada and Washington, following Amodei’s example.

“It’s just very important that at the end of the day, that northern Nevada chooses a northern Nevadan to go to DC to represent northern Nevada,” Settelmeyer told a small gathering in Washoe Valley recently.

He has reinforced this theme by highlighting Flippo’s recent relocation to the district and absence of political experience. Flippo previously competed in the Republican primary for Nevada’s 4th District in 2024 but was unsuccessful.

“Twenty years ago, we would have said this race is probably a shoe-in for the more experienced candidate,” observed Jeremy Gelman, a political science professor at the University of Nevada in Reno. “The way Republican primary politics have evolved, that’s not the case anymore.”

Amodei’s effectiveness stemmed partly from his ability to advance Trump’s priorities while occasionally challenging him, noted Fred Lokken, political science professor at the Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno.

He became the first House Republican to endorse an impeachment inquiry into Trump in 2019, though he eventually opposed impeachment. He criticized Trump’s immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota this year and resisted proposals to eliminate public broadcasting funding in 2025.

Trump’s influence proved decisive in recent Senate primaries in Louisiana and Texas, Gelman noted. The former president appears focused on identifying allies who will advance his priority agenda during his term’s final two years, likely viewing Flippo as more reliable given his campaign’s emphasis on national issues.

Flippo has secured backing from national Republicans closely tied to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement, including former Rep. Matt Gaetz and the Freedom Caucus Fund, the political action committee representing the hard-right conservative House Republican faction. In his endorsement, Trump highlighted that Flippo has support from “the most Highly Respected MAGA Warriors in Nevada.”

Settelmeyer’s campaign responded that northern Nevada voters “deserve a representative who knows our issues, understands our communities, and has the experience to represent them in Washington, not someone who only moved here when a political opportunity opened up.”

PORTLAND, Maine — Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful Graham Platner plans to stage his first significant campaign event Friday evening while facing ongoing scrutiny over his conduct with women.

His campaign dealt with revelations last weekend regarding sexually explicit communications Platner allegedly sent to multiple women during his marriage. Thursday brought additional reporting from The New York Times about his romantic history, with some former partners describing him in positive terms while others characterized him as unpredictable and demeaning.

One former partner accused Platner of physically restraining her arm during a dispute and confining her to a room. Platner has denied this claim.

With Maine’s primary election scheduled for Tuesday and Democrats eager to unite behind a nominee capable of unseating Republican Sen. Susan Collins this fall, there has been minimal indication that voters or political supporters are distancing themselves from Platner, who has presented himself as a flawed individual seeking redemption.

Some have dismissed the text message reports as personal business that should remain between spouses. Others contend that the Democratic Party’s need to regain Senate control from Republicans is too critical to abandon candidates with imperfections.

However, concerns persist about whether additional damaging information about Platner might surface before November’s general election.

“I think a lot of people are afraid,” said Deb Dagnan, chair of Maine’s Piscataquis County Democrats. “They’re waiting for the other shoe to drop after he gets the nomination. Then what do we do?”

Platner represents a crucial component of Democratic efforts to reclaim Senate control this cycle. However, he has faced persistent controversies including disclosure of a previously concealed tattoo featuring Nazi imagery, a record of provocative social media posts, and the recent messaging allegations.

Despite these issues, Platner’s high-profile endorsers have maintained their support, including Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Ruben Gallego. Platner is set to appear in Bar Harbor Friday evening alongside progressive Rep. Ro Khanna of California, plus Democratic nominees for U.S. House and governor, for a voter mobilization event in the coastal community.

The gathering occurs just days before the state’s June 9 primary contest, where Platner is anticipated to claim the Democratic nomination. His leading challenger, Gov. Janet Mills, ended her campaign in late April.

He faces renewed examination following reports that he and spouse Amy Gertner have experienced marital strain and pursued counseling after he reportedly sent sexually explicit messages to other women.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Gertner informed the campaign in August about the messages, which she discovered on his device last year, to ensure they wouldn’t damage the campaign. Platner’s team reportedly concluded the texts were private matters being addressed by the couple, who wed in 2023.

Genevieve McDonald, a former campaign staffer for Platner, told The Associated Press that the candidate was “sexting multiple women while married” and that “the campaign tried to assess that as an election vulnerability.”

Following the story’s publication, Platner released a five-minute video recorded by Gertner, who avoided directly addressing her husband’s alleged texts but called the broader media attention “gossip” and noted “being married is hard.”

Gertner’s candid remarks about working through marital challenges have connected with some women, who express outrage that a former campaign worker would violate confidentiality and believe the matter should remain between the spouses.

“It’s none of my business as far as I’m concerned,” said Joanne Mason, a local Democratic leader from south-central Maine. “And I would hope that people wouldn’t judge any one person on their own private marriage.”

Valerie Tate, a Democrat from Belfast, praised Gertner’s openness about addressing their mental health and relationship challenges.

“That is not a scandal,” Tate wrote in an email. “That is integrity. Personal growth is not a disqualification from public life. For many of us, it is precisely what made us worthy of it.”

Nevertheless, Tate acknowledged lingering unease. As the public continues learning about Platner’s background, there remains possibility that something could emerge as a deal-breaker for voters.

“Of course, there is that concern as there would be in any race with somebody we don’t know all the dramas and the journeys they’ve been on,” she wrote. “Something could come out that would be disqualifying.”

This marks another chapter in Platner’s pattern of facing questions about his history. He previously had a tattoo associated with Nazi symbolism, which he covered after launching his campaign.

Platner has claimed he was unaware of the tattoo’s significance. However, a former girlfriend informed the Times he made jokes about it being a Nazi symbol and referred to it as “my Totenkopf.”

Platner’s past Reddit activity has also drawn scrutiny, including posts that minimized military sexual assaults and contained homophobic language, for which he has expressed regret.

Having never served in elected office, Platner has built a direct-speaking, progressive, populist campaign centered on issues including economic inequality, healthcare access barriers, and housing affordability. His approach has drawn thousands to rallies and events while generating millions in campaign contributions to amplify his message.

“People want somebody new,” said Paige Zeigler, a former Maine Democratic lawmaker and head of the Waldo County Democrats, explaining Platner’s continued strength. “They want somebody that they feel that they can embrace. And Platner is riding that wave.”

NEW YORK (AP) — A contentious debate erupted Thursday evening among Democratic candidates seeking a highly sought-after Manhattan congressional seat, with tensions flaring over technology industry influence and which contender could best challenge President Donald Trump.

State lawmaker Alex Bores found himself at the center of the attacks, facing criticism over his artificial intelligence regulatory proposals that have triggered significant industry expenditures both opposing and supporting his candidacy.

Early in the debate, state Assembly Member Micah Lasher accused Bores of being influenced by major technology corporations backing his campaign.

“Alex only wants to tell you half the story, about one AI company that’s spending millions to defeat him, and that’s bad,” Lasher said. “But he’s not telling you the story about Anthropic, which is spending a million dollars to elect him, or a crypto billionaire who is spending $3.5 million to send him to Congress,” Lasher continued.

Shortly afterward, Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of former President John F. Kennedy, echoed similar concerns, contending that Bores’ proposed artificial intelligence regulation “is a dream come true” for tech companies because it would give them too much control.

Bores responded: “With friends like these, who needs Republicans?”

“The Trump disinformation is coming from inside the party,” said Bores, a former data scientist at the tech firm Palantir who says he quit after it signed a deal to help the first Trump administration with immigration enforcement.

The televised forum, broadcast by local cable channel PIX11, occurred just weeks before the June 23 primary election for the District 12 congressional position that will be left open by retiring U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler. The constituency encompasses affluent neighborhoods surrounding Central Park and Times Square in Midtown Manhattan. The seat is viewed as securely Democratic, making the Democratic primary the decisive competition.

Following Nadler’s retirement announcement, numerous Democrats launched campaigns, though the field of contenders has somewhat narrowed.

Nadler has endorsed Lasher, a former staffer who has held several behind-the-scenes posts in New York government before becoming a lawmaker in the state Assembly.

Schlossberg, whose zany social media antics and Kennedy lineage brought national eyes to the race, has cast himself as an fresh face to a party searching for stars during Trump’s second term.

George Conway, who was once married to former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway before becoming a leading antagonist of the president, is running a campaign centered on removing Trump from office.

Bores entered the race without the fanfare of a Kennedy or a Conway but has since become a major player after an artificial intelligence-aligned group started spending to hobble his campaign. The spending has seemed to elevate his campaign, rather than damage him, helping Bores frame himself as the candidate who wants to regulate a technology that has unnerved many Americans worried about impacts such as job losses.

During the entire debate, Bores, who sponsored state legislation to require major AI developers to report dangerous incidents to the state, defended against criticism.

Following one heated exchange, he attempted to respond but was interrupted when the program broke for advertisements. Three of the five commercials focused on Bores, demonstrating the heavy spending surrounding the contest.

The opening advertisement, funded by the AI-backed Think Big PAC, alleged Bores was “bought and sold” by corporate interests. The next two advertisements supported Bores, with one featuring a robotic voice that identified itself as “the AI super PAC funded by Trump’s megadonors designed to destroy Alex Bores,” and the other casting Bores as a champion of the working class.

“You’ve seen tonight that I’m nothing like the incessant text and mailers and TV ads that are being sent out to demonize me. But I am terrifying to Trump’s megadonors and apparently to my opponents as well,” Bores said when the debate resumed.

Conway, meanwhile, lamented the combative nature of the night.

“What we saw here tonight was something that Democrats sometimes do a little too well, which was a circular, or really a triangular firing squad, and I think that’s a shame,” he said.

WASHINGTON — GOP senators rejected multiple proposed changes Thursday night while working to approve funding for President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement operations, including turning down a Democratic proposal to permanently prevent Trump from establishing a $1.776 billion settlement fund for allies claiming government persecution.

However, Republicans continued facing numerous proposed amendments before the legislation could move forward, creating a challenge for party solidarity that extended deep into the evening. The most significant danger to the bill may come from another proposal to prohibit the settlement fund — this one from Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was defeated for reelection last month following Trump’s endorsement of his primary challenger.

“I feel optimistic that we’ll get there in the end,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., stated Thursday evening, though he admitted uncertainty about how the voting would unfold.

Thune has spent weeks urging GOP senators to maintain the bill’s focus on funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, which Democrats have prevented since early this year, while avoiding additional provisions that might complicate approval.

Should a settlement-limiting amendment succeed, Thune explained, it would create difficulties when sending the bill to the House. It might also trigger a White House veto of the immigration spending legislation, which has otherwise brought Trump and Republicans together.

When the Senate suddenly modified a Homeland Security funding package in March, the House simply rejected it and adjourned.

The judgment fund, established through a settlement resolving Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS regarding his leaked tax returns, has frustrated numerous Republican senators.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced this week that the fund would not proceed. However, Trump, who has disagreed with Senate Republicans recently, created fresh uncertainty about the settlement’s status Wednesday afternoon — immediately after the Senate voted to begin immigration bill discussions — when he informed reporters that the settlement is “very important” and stated “I don’t know” whether it has been terminated or postponed.

“I’d have to ask the lawyers,” he said.

The Democratic proposal to eliminate the fund, the day’s initial vote, remained open for approximately three hours while Cassidy, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska delayed their decisions. Ultimately, Cassidy opposed the Democratic motion while the other two GOP senators — both facing reelection this year — supported it.

Senators rejected a second proposal from Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina that would similarly prohibit the settlement fund while transferring the money to a separate anti-fraud fund at the Department of Justice. Most Democrats opposed the amendment, ensuring its failure, though more than 10 Republicans backed it.

Tillis argued the settlement fund, which could potentially benefit Trump supporters who assaulted police and attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, represents a political burden for the party.

“If Blanche says this is largely inoperative, why not use this moment to codify that?” Tillis questioned. “Otherwise, you’re exposing every one of our members who are in cycle to having to deal with this between today and Election Day, and that makes no sense for something that the DOJ says they’re not moving forward with.”

Republican voting intentions on additional amendments remained uncertain.

Cassidy, who spent the day consulting with the Senate parliamentarian, confirmed he still intended to propose an amendment banning settlement payouts. He informed reporters he might also suggest an amendment blocking a separate settlement provision granting Trump and his family immunity from IRS audits.

Multiple Republican senators expressed support for the concept but said they needed to review the final wording before deciding. Sen. John Cornyn, who also lost reelection last month after Trump endorsed his opponent, said he supports the “thrust of it” but would await the amendment. Republican Sen. John Curtis expressed similar sentiments.

Thune acknowledged uncertainty about whether the final bill could pass without some settlement prohibition.

“We’re going to find out soon enough,” he said Thursday evening.

Democrats scheduled additional votes throughout the night, covering Trump’s tariffs, his conflict with Iran and his immigration enforcement initiatives.

“Amendment after amendment, vote after vote, Republicans are going to have to answer to the American people,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer declared.

Approving the approximately $70 billion bill funding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol would conclude the Democratic blockade, which demanded policy modifications following the fatal shootings of two protesters by federal agents in January. The legislation would provide agency funding for three years, covering Trump’s entire term.

Senate Republicans are employing a complex procedural strategy to bypass the filibuster and approve the budget legislation without Democratic support. However, bringing the bill to the Senate floor required weeks as Republicans addressed various passage obstacles created by Trump and the White House — including a $1 billion White House security proposal they ultimately abandoned and the intense bipartisan opposition to the settlement fund.

Democrats maintain that any Homeland Security Department funding bill should impose restrictions on federal immigration authorities, including improved officer identification and increased judicial warrant usage, among other demands.

Following federal agents’ shooting of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Trump agreed to a Democratic request separating the Homeland Security bill from a larger spending measure that became law. However, bipartisan negotiations stalled, and department funding expired in mid-February without agreement on Trump administration immigration enforcement changes.

Congress eventually funded the remaining Homeland Security Department at April’s end with Democratic backing. But ICE and Border Patrol continued without regular funding, prompting Republicans to launch a new effort providing three years of agency funding without Democratic votes.

A U.S. Senate hopeful from Maine is facing serious accusations from former romantic partners who claim he engaged in physically aggressive behavior during their relationships over a decade ago.

According to a recent New York Times investigation, Lyndsey Fifield has accused Graham Platner of repeatedly gripping her forcefully enough to create bruises, yanking her out of a taxi by her wrist, and in one particularly troubling episode, forcing her arm behind her back before pushing her into a bedroom and preventing her from leaving the room. Fifield, who works as a conservative activist, told the newspaper that while Platner never struck or punched her during their approximately two-year relationship beginning in 2013, these encounters left her frightened and disturbed. At the time, Platner was attending George Washington University after completing his military service.

The Times investigation examined Platner’s romantic history, interviewing multiple former partners who offered varying perspectives – some spoke favorably of him while others described patterns of insulting language, unpredictable behavior, or infidelity.

A second woman, Jenny Racicot, shared her own troubling experiences with the publication. Racicot, who identifies as a Maine Democrat, said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner from 2019 to 2021. She recounted an incident in 2021 when Platner arrived at her residence intoxicated despite her explicit request that he not visit. She characterized his actions as “reckless” and “unsettling.”

The 41-year-old oyster farmer and military veteran, who is expected to secure victory in Tuesday’s Democratic primary, has categorically rejected claims of violent behavior in his response to the Associated Press. The Times reported that he refused their interview requests.

“Throughout this campaign, I’ve been open about what was a very dark period of my life where I struggled with undiagnosed PTSD, too often self medicated with alcohol, and was a far from perfect boyfriend. I take responsibility for all of that, and wish I had been better,” the statement said. “Any characterization beyond that is false, and I believe, politically motivated. I’m not proud of who I was then, but I am proud of the work I’ve done since, and the movement we are building in Maine.”

The Associated Press was unable to contact either Fifield or Racicot for additional comment.

Platner has gained significant attention throughout Maine with his powerful speaking style and progressive political positions. Despite having no prior experience in elected office, he has built his campaign around working-class concerns including expensive housing and healthcare costs. His expected matchup against Republican Sen. Susan Collins this November represents a crucial opportunity for Democrats seeking to regain Senate control.

Describing a specific incident, Fifield told the newspaper that during arguments involving alcohol, Platner could become physically rough. She detailed one episode where he forced her arm behind her back, pushed her into a bedroom, and held the door shut from the outside, trapping her inside.

“It hurt,” she told the paper, adding: “It didn’t cause an injury, it didn’t break my arm.”

During a Thursday evening appearance on MS NOW, Platner directly contradicted Fifield’s account of being forced into a room, telling host Chris Hayes that her version of events was untrue. He suggested the accusations stemmed from political motivations.

“There are things in this that I absolutely will take responsibility for and have been speaking about openly for months,” Platner said. “But those serious allegations are just not true.”

In her Times interview, Fifield firmly rejected any suggestion that political considerations influenced her decision to come forward.

This latest controversy follows recent public disclosure that Platner sent sexually explicit messages to multiple women during his marriage.

Additional questions have emerged regarding a skull tattoo that experts recognize as a Nazi symbol. Platner claims he was unaware of its meaning until several weeks after launching his campaign, at which point he had it modified with a different design. He maintains he was ignorant of the tattoo’s significance.

However, Fifield told the Times that he made jokes about its Nazi connections and referred to it as “my Totenkopf.”

During his MS NOW appearance, Platner once again insisted he was unaware of his tattoo’s meaning.

Notable supporters including independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have maintained their backing despite these revelations. As of Thursday, no prominent Democratic figures had publicly withdrawn their endorsements.

U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat scheduled to join Platner at a Maine campaign event Friday, condemned the behavior described in the Times as “wrong and toxic,” but added, “Graham has acknowledged that and sought redemption. The people of Maine deserve a senator who is going to stand up to the billionaire class, against genocide, and for the working class.”

Platner has also faced scrutiny over previous Reddit posts that minimized military sexual assaults and contained homophobic language, issues for which he has issued apologies.

His campaign has survived these earlier controversies in what was previously viewed as a highly competitive Democratic primary before Gov. Janet Mills withdrew from the race in late April citing insufficient campaign funding.

WASHINGTON – The House of Representatives approved legislation Thursday that would deliver assistance to Ukraine and establish additional sanctions against Russia, marking another instance where some Republican lawmakers have chosen to oppose their party’s leadership and challenge President Donald Trump’s position.

Lawmakers voted 226 to 195 in favor of the Ukraine Support Act, which had been stalled for several months before reaching the floor. A small number of Republicans joined with Democrats to sign a discharge petition that forced the legislation to a vote.

During Thursday’s vote, 18 Republicans and one independent who typically sides with them voted alongside Democrats to approve the measure. The vote represents another indication of fractures within what had previously been nearly universal Republican backing for Trump’s policy positions.

The vote occurred one day after a smaller contingent of House Republicans sided with Democrats to approve a resolution requiring troop withdrawal from conflicts with Iran unless Congress formally declares war or authorizes military action.

The Ukraine Support Act faces an unclear path forward, however. The legislation must gain approval in the Senate to become law, but Republican Senate leaders have blocked votes on Russia sanctions measures that enjoy broad bipartisan backing, stating they would await Trump’s direction.

Should the Senate approve the bill, Trump would likely veto the legislation.

Although lawmakers from both parties demonstrated strong support for Ukraine during the initial period following Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, some of Trump’s closest Republican supporters – including House and Senate leadership – have become less supportive of Kyiv since Trump began his second term in January 2025.

The president has also maintained control over sanctions decisions within the White House rather than Congress since beginning his second term.

American assistance to the Kyiv government has decreased significantly even as Russia and Ukraine continue exchanging attacks using missiles, drones and artillery. Diplomatic efforts remain deadlocked, with Ukraine refusing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s demands to surrender territory it has successfully protected since 2022.

The Ukraine Support Act contains provisions to assist Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction efforts, authorizes more than $1 billion in direct assistance for Kyiv, and provides up to $8 billion in support through direct loans.

The legislation also establishes strict sanctions and export restrictions targeting Russia, including measures affecting financial institutions, oil and mining sectors, and Russian government officials.

High-ranking federal officials have engaged in early-stage conversations with leading artificial intelligence companies regarding the possibility of the government acquiring ownership positions in these firms, according to a Thursday report from digital news publication NOTUS, which cited three sources with knowledge of the discussions.

The planning remains in development with shifting details, but conversations have focused on arrangements where companies would voluntarily transfer ownership shares to the federal government, according to the report.

Profits from these investments could potentially be allocated for public benefit, including distributing dividend payments to American families nationwide, the report indicated.

Reuters was unable to immediately verify the report’s claims.

This news emerges as OpenAI and Anthropic are preparing for major public stock offerings. OpenAI is getting ready to privately submit IPO paperwork, as Reuters had previously reported, while Anthropic, the company behind Claude, privately filed for a U.S. public offering on Monday.

According to the report, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has engaged in discussions about this concept with government officials since President Donald Trump started his second term. Altman initially presented the idea directly to Trump during a 2025 conversation and has revisited the topic with senior administration officials in recent weeks as a method to more widely share AI’s economic advantages with the general public, NOTUS reported.

In 2025, Altman stated that OpenAI has engaged with the federal government regarding potential federal loan guarantees to encourage domestic chip manufacturing facility construction, though the company has not pursued government guarantees for its data center development.

The report noted that Anthropic is not engaging in discussions with the administration about offering government equity.

OpenAI, Anthropic, and the White House did not provide immediate responses to Reuters’ requests for comment regarding the NOTUS report.

On Tuesday, Trump issued an executive order requesting that major AI developers voluntarily submit their most advanced models for government cybersecurity evaluation prior to public release.

The administration announced in May that it would acquire $2 billion in ownership stakes across nine quantum computing companies.

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that he conducted meetings with automotive industry executives regarding legislation surrounding vehicle repair rights.

The discussions included GM CEO Mary Barra, Ford Motor senior executive Andrew Frick, and leadership from the National Automobile Dealers Association and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, alongside Republican Senator Bernie Moreno, who previously worked as an auto dealer.

Ford verified its participation in the discussions, while the automotive organizations chose not to provide statements. GM did not reply to requests for comment.

“We had the auto industry in yesterday. They don’t want people to fix their car. I said ‘That’s strange!’” Trump stated. “They have a thing; nobody’s allowed to fix their car.”

The automotive sector has engaged in disputes with independent mechanics and advocacy organizations for years regarding the ability to service newer vehicles. The annual value of the U.S. automotive service industry reaches approximately $200 billion.

A U.S. House of Representatives committee approved legislation last week that would codify current industry agreements and grant the Federal Trade Commission enforcement powers over these arrangements.

The automotive alliance, representing most major car manufacturers, endorsed the measure and highlighted that 75% of vehicle repairs after warranty expiration occur at independent facilities. The organization stated that in 2014, automakers pledged to provide comprehensive repair guidance, equipment access, and diagnostic information to both dealerships and independent mechanics.

Numerous legislators and independent repair facilities believe additional measures are necessary and seek congressional approval of separate bills ensuring vehicle owners can access and distribute repair-related information, including diagnostic details.

The proposed measures would mandate that vehicle manufacturers provide owners and independent mechanics with access to diagnostic information, repair procedures, and calibration data.

Several lawmakers contend that limiting data access allows automakers to increase costs and forces independent repair shops to pay substantial fees for repair software access.

The automotive dealers organization opposes the proposed legislation, claiming it would allow aftermarket manufacturers to copy automotive components and create inferior replicas, while also providing insurance companies greater influence over repair choices.

Family members of people killed in police encounters across Minnesota voiced outrage Thursday over the state Republican Party’s decision to conduct a silent prayer for Derek Chauvin, the ex-officer imprisoned for George Floyd’s murder.

“That is the most hurtful thing you can do,” said Valerie Castile, the mother of Philando Castile, a 32-year-old school cafeteria worker who was shot and killed by a Minnesota police officer in 2016. “You give a moment of silence to a murderer? Come on.”

Castile joined other community members at a press conference hosted by Twin Cities Coalition For Justice.

The Minnesota Republican Party nominating convention conducted a moment of silence last weekend for Chauvin.

Once news of this action spread, it sparked fierce criticism.

Civil rights organizations, racial justice activists and Democratic elected officials quickly denounced party leaders, claiming they were blindly backing law enforcement while showing disrespect to Floyd and his relatives.

Chauvin has been serving time in federal prison since 2021, following his conviction for Floyd’s murder six years ago. Mobile phone footage showing Chauvin pressing his knee against Floyd’s neck for more than 9 minutes while Floyd repeatedly said “I can’t breathe” ignited widespread racial justice demonstrations throughout the second half of 2020.

On Floyd’s death anniversary one year later, people gathered at the location and knelt silently, representing the 9 minutes and 29 seconds Floyd remained pinned beneath Chauvin.

A convention attendee at the Minnesota GOP meeting in Duluth on Saturday suggested recognizing Chauvin, based on local media coverage. This happened just days following the sixth anniversary of Floyd’s death.

“The moment of silent prayer was a spontaneous motion brought forward from the convention floor. It was not part of the official convention program, it was not proposed by Convention Chairman Danny Nadeau, and it was not a statement from party leadership,” the Minnesota Republican Party said in a statement.

Castile emphasized that regardless of limited participation, the action remained painful.

“I am proud of the ones who did not do the moment of silence,” she said. “Those that did, they should be reprimanded in some fashion.”

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who headed the state’s case against Chauvin, expressed in a statement this week that he was “heartbroken and frankly shocked” by the prayer.

“This decision dishonors the memory of George Floyd and wounds his loved ones all over again. As the lead prosecutor whose team presented this case to a jury of twelve Minnesotans and then prevailed at every step of the appeals process, I am deeply troubled by what this says about the state of our politics,” Ellison said.

Ben Crump and Antonio Romanucci, the attorneys who represented Floyd’s family in a wrongful death lawsuit, were left “sickened by this lack of respect.” They also demanded the Minnesota GOP retract their moment of silence and apologize to Floyd’s family.

“The audacity of the Minnesota Republican Party to honor an individual who has both been convicted by a jury of his peers for the murder of a fellow human being, while at the same time (violating) a professional oath to protect and serve his community, is disgusting,” they said in a statement.

Reached via text message on Thursday, Floyd’s New York-based brother, Terrence Floyd, said he was “glad to see people are still fighting with us for complete justice.”

The silent tribute for Chauvin follows a familiar pattern where conservatives have responded to police violence incidents with “back the blue” campaigns. Even before 2020, when George Floyd’s murder sparked the biggest racial justice protests since the Civil Rights Movement, certain officers became symbols of “law and order” or opposition to Black Lives Matter.

In 2014, following Darren Wilson — the former Ferguson, Missouri, police officer who is white — fatally shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was Black, a GoFundMe campaign collected hundreds of thousands of dollars for the officer’s family and legal costs. This sum far exceeded what was raised for Brown’s family. Wilson was never charged criminally or with federal civil rights violations.

Police officers involved in high-profile deaths of Laquan McDonald in Chicago and Eric Garner in New York also received substantial backing from law enforcement unions that portrayed criminal charges or disciplinary actions against officers as unfair and politically driven.

While legal results differ significantly across these cases, most notable instances of support for officers facing charges in deadly encounters do not lead to overturned convictions.

___ Associated Press editor Aaron Morrison in New York City contributed to this report.

Standing in the early morning light near the Sandia Mountains, Deb Haaland spent the final hours of New Mexico’s primary election doing what she’s done for years – connecting with voters at the tribal community where she once served as an administrator.

At San Felipe Pueblo, where Haaland previously worked, she greeted passing drivers and urged them to cast their ballots. The Laguna Pueblo citizen spent time with former coworkers and friends, discussing everything from meals to family and handmade silver jewelry with Pueblo women who have followed her career with admiration and hope to witness her become America’s first Native woman governor.

By evening, Haaland had claimed the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Her journey from Congress to serving as U.S. Interior secretary has shattered multiple glass ceilings, and she now stands positioned to reach another historic achievement if she can overcome Republican challenger Gregg Hull this November.

Political forecasters give Haaland strong chances of victory, considering New Mexico’s shift toward Democratic candidates over the past ten years. However, Hull, who previously served as mayor three separate times, argues the state requires new leadership after extended Democratic control to address persistent issues including poor education performance, elevated crime rates, and widespread poverty.

The incoming governor will face enduring challenges while dealing with policies implemented during the Trump administration. During her primary victory remarks Tuesday evening, Haaland immediately referenced President Donald Trump and has accused him of increasing costs for New Mexico residents by reducing crucial federal assistance programs.

In an upcoming memoir scheduled for publication this month, she revealed that Trump’s reelection inspired her gubernatorial campaign, viewing the governor’s office as the “first line of defense against the worst policies coming out of this administration.”

Hull avoided mentioning Trump in his victory speech, instead criticizing Haaland’s previous stance against the oil and gas sector, which funds everything from schools to free childcare in New Mexico, the nation’s second-largest oil producer after Texas.

While Haaland acknowledges that energy revenue will influence her affordability plans and recognizes the industry’s role in creating well-paying positions, she previously supported the Green New Deal advocating for an economic transition away from fossil fuels. During congressional hearings, lawmakers frequently questioned her drilling positions.

“It’s a choice between an energy policy that’s built on common sense and not one that’s built on ideologies,” Hull stated Tuesday evening. “New Mexico is an energy state.”

Haaland emphasized that America has waited too long for a female Native governor. Only Oklahoma has elected a tribal citizen as governor, doing so twice – first with Democrat Johnston Murray in the early 1950s and currently with Republican Kevin Stitt.

“I feel so strongly that representation matters,” Haaland declared. “I mean, that’s what got me into politics in the first place, is because I wanted more Native people to vote.”

Hull acknowledged Haaland’s service as one of the first two Native American women in Congress and the first Native American Cabinet secretary, but maintained that Democratic policies have disappointed New Mexico.

At Hull’s election celebration, David Bearshield, who is Cheyanne and Arapaho, ceremonially presented Hull and his wife with Pendleton blankets as a gesture of endorsement and a demonstration that Native voters don’t share uniform political views.

According to Bearshield, some Native voters and tribal governments favor more conservative politicians, particularly regarding energy development. He referenced the continuing dispute around Chaco Culture National Historical Park, where certain Navajos oppose the drilling moratorium Haaland established as Interior secretary.

“It doesn’t have to be like that,” Bearshield stated. “Those people don’t have to be in poverty.”

Advocacy organizations view Haaland’s campaign as a valuable chance to elevate tribal visibility and guarantee their participation in governance. However, Haaland understands both the enhanced attention and criticism that accompany representing frequently marginalized communities, according to Jordan James Harvill from the advocacy group Advance Native Political Leadership.

“The weight on her is the weight to solve 500 years of colonization,” he explained. “It’s just because there’s been so few of us.”

Harvill’s organization works to expand Native representation on county boards and in state legislatures by recruiting over 1,000 Native Americans interested in community service. The group also joined a coalition that urged the Biden administration to select Haaland as Interior secretary.

During primary night festivities at Albuquerque’s historic Old Town plaza, mariachi music and hoop dancers created a celebratory atmosphere where campaign workers and supporters marked a convincing primary win by “Auntie Deb,” her affectionate nickname in parts of Indian Country.

When Haaland appeared on stage wearing beaded earrings and red cowboy boots to accept the nomination, Ann Chavez Barudin of Santo Domingo Pueblo observed from the audience. She recognized herself, her mother, and her daughters in the candidate.

“It’s emotional. It’s powerful,” Chavez Barudin expressed. “I didn’t think I would ever see this day happen.”

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Two former FirstEnergy Corp. executives are facing fresh criminal charges after Ohio’s attorney general announced Thursday that a grand jury has issued new indictments in the state’s massive $60 million corruption case.

Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, worked alongside Summit County Prosecutor Elliot Kolkovich to outline 22 new criminal charges targeting Charles “Chuck” Jones, the former chief executive of the Akron-based utility company, and Michael Dowling, who previously served as the company’s lead lobbyist. The pair’s original prosecutions concluded in mistrial earlier this year.

“The roots of this complex case haven’t changed — FirstEnergy was hijacked by two scheming executives who sought to control the regulator that influenced the company’s stock prices,” Yost said in a statement. “I’m confident that Ohio’s ratepayers will get justice when the facts are unearthed in the courtroom.”

The charges against each defendant include engaging in corrupt activity patterns, bribery, conspiracy, evidence tampering, and two telecommunications fraud counts. Jones faces two additional obstruction of justice charges, while Dowling is hit with 14 extra counts of record tampering.

These fresh indictments arrive while defense attorneys for both executives are pursuing acquittals from Summit County Common Pleas Judge Susan Baker Ross. Their six-week trial in Akron concluded in March without jury consensus after nine days of deliberations.

At the heart of the prosecution’s case lies a $4.3 million payment FirstEnergy delivered to experienced attorney and lobbyist Sam Randazzo in 2019, just before his appointment as Ohio’s chief utility regulator. Prosecutors contend Jones and Dowling orchestrated this substantial payment to Randazzo in return for regulatory and legislative benefits he would provide as chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. These favors allegedly included helping craft and promote House Bill 6, which contained a $1 billion rescue package for two deteriorating FirstEnergy-connected nuclear facilities.

FirstEnergy terminated both executives in October 2020 for breaking company policies and conduct standards.

Former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder is currently serving 20 years in prison for leading a FirstEnergy-backed conspiracy to gain power, install political allies, and pass the legislation, followed by running a smear campaign against repeal efforts. The scheme resulted in five total indictments: one person received five years for blocking the repeal, another died by suicide after entering a not guilty plea, and two others await sentencing while assisting investigators.

Randazzo also took his own life while facing state and federal charges. A major trial dispute centered on whether he counted as a public official when the alleged bribe occurred. The $4.3 million transfer happened just before Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine named him PUCO chairman. Republican U.S. Sen. and former Lt. Gov. Jon Husted, who is campaigning to keep his position this fall, testified that Jones and Dowling were still advocating for a different candidate for the role.

Yost revealed Thursday that investigators have uncovered fresh evidence since the original charges.

“This new indictment includes some additional facts that were not known to us at the time of the first indictment that we became aware of because of a civil lawsuit against FirstEnergy,” he said in a video message. Both DeWine and Husted, who face no accusations of misconduct, received subpoenas in that separate legal action.

The latest indictment alleges that Jones and Dowling operated as part of a criminal organization, executing an extensive secret conspiracy from 2010 through 2021 to bribe state officials and unlawfully promote FirstEnergy’s financial interests along with their own. They’re accused of collaborating to “steal the power of government and bend it to the will of FirstEnergy” while hiding their activities through fraudulent ethics filings.

Dowling’s legal representatives stated the new indictment repeats many previous charges and incorporates additional material that the judge specifically barred during trial, including particular criminal allegations against both defendants that she dismissed.

“The timing of the new indictment comes within days of Attorney General Dave Yost leaving office on Monday,” the statement notes, and just before oral arguments on Dowling’s and Jones’ post-verdict motions for acquittal, which are set for Friday.

Yost faces term limits and was essentially pushed out of the governor’s race last year when GOP backing shifted toward biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. He announced in May his resignation six months early to accept an executive role at Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization. Public Safety Director Andy Wilson has been named interim attorney general through January.

Federal officials have moved forward with President Donald Trump’s proposal for a massive commemorative arch in Washington, D.C., while requesting additional details about the ambitious project’s potential effects on aviation and local infrastructure.

The National Capital Planning Commission voted Thursday to gather more information from the Department of the Interior regarding the proposed 250-foot structure planned for construction between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.

The decision followed nearly three hours of public testimony from approximately 20 speakers, including representatives from historical and architectural organizations, with the majority expressing opposition to the arch project that represents one of several initiatives the Republican president is advancing to establish his legacy in the nation’s capital.

Site preparation work including preliminary surveys and testing commenced last month, while additional approvals continue moving through the process. The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts has already given its approval to the arch’s design, marking an important milestone in the project’s development though not directly affecting construction scheduling.

Currently, the National Capital Planning Commission wants additional justification for the monument’s proposed towering height, along with comprehensive details regarding illumination plans, stormwater management systems, and visitor traffic and parking arrangements.

Will Scharf, who has served as Trump’s White House staff secretary, heads the commission and recognized the applicant “has some homework to do,” Scharf said, recommending more information on how it would appear from other monuments in the Washington area. But, Scharf said ultimately, this year’s 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence “is as good an opportunity as any to add something to Washington, D.C., that will hopefully stand the test of time.

Stuart Levenbach, Trump appointee and commission vice chairman, said the proposed site represented “one of the few locations” in the area where such an “iconic civic monument could be appropriate,” although he added that “it’s reasonable to consider whether a significant architectural statement belongs in such a location.”

Numerous individuals who contacted the commission prior to Thursday’s session expressed concerns about the structure’s enormous size, interference with the city’s skyline, and public safety in the busy area. Some comments characterized it as a “waste of taxpayer money,” while others labeled it Trump’s “vanity project” or a “disgusting and disrespectful move by a man who wants to be king.”

Dozens of speakers had registered for Thursday’s session, many having previously spoken against the proposal at earlier meetings, representing groups such as the National Parks Conservation Association, National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Society of Architectural Historians.

Multiple speakers, including Gary Langston, a military veteran, criticized the arch for being oversized, requiring congressional authorization, or disrupting the visual connection between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House at Arlington National Cemetery that was established to represent post-Civil War reunification.

“What’s required here, if anything, is a solemn memorial rather than a monument,” Langston said.

Trump has asserted that he doesn’t need congressional approval because he’s building it on federal land.

The monument would rise 250 feet tall (76 meters) from ground level to a torch carried by a Lady Liberty-style figure atop the structure, accompanied by two golden eagles. However, four lions originally planned to guard the base have been eliminated. The inscriptions “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice for All” would appear in golden letters on each side of the monument, with the Pledge of Allegiance text displayed on both eastern and western faces.

A visitor observation platform at the top would offer panoramic views of the surrounding area. The structure would feature a granite exterior.

Opponents have contended that the monument would overwhelm the skyline and interfere with intentionally designed sight lines between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. The structure would stand more than double the height of the Lincoln Memorial at 99 feet (30 meters), and approximately half the height of the Washington Monument at roughly 555 feet (169 meters).

One Thursday speaker offered alternative suggestions. Shady Migally, an architect in California, recommended that any arch project should demonstrate more creativity than simply reinterpreting Paris’ Arc de Triomphe, presenting an alternative design matching the administration’s proposed height but featuring less dense side columns and a taller inner archway that, based on digital renderings, would preserve more visibility between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.

Trump had said last year that the arch could be paid for with private donations left over from the ballroom project. A cost estimate for the arch is still being calculated, but a mix of taxpayer and private funds is expected to pay for it, according to a White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the president has not publicly discussed the project’s cost.

A group of veterans and a historian have sued the Trump administration in federal court to block the arch construction over concerns about disruptions to the sightline.

In an Oval Office event on Thursday, Trump called the arch a tribute to military victories.

“Nobody’s had more military victories, including recently, than we have,” he said.

The president has announced that some of his additional projects, including applying a blue coating to the interior of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, will enhance the city’s appearance for July 4 celebrations marking America’s 250th anniversary. His administration announced Thursday that the renovation work had been finished and the pool was prepared for water filling.

The White House East Wing was demolished to build a large ballroom.

Until a judge determined last week that it had been unlawfully installed and ordered its removal, Trump’s name had been placed on the Kennedy Center.

Opposition voices have argued that Trump, a Republican, is dedicating excessive time and focus to his personal projects rather than addressing concerns important to voters, such as living costs, as the November elections approach.

That project is also the subject of a court challenge brought by The Cultural Landscape Foundation, which said repainting the bottom of the Reflecting Pool blue without first undergoing relevant reviews runs afoul of federal preservation laws governing historic sites.

An order in the case hasn’t come yet, and on Wednesday, the Trump administration notified the court that the work was complete, with the basin set to be filled by Sunday.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced Thursday that Bill Pulte, the federal housing finance regulator he selected as acting director of national intelligence, will not receive his nomination for the permanent position.

The Republican president’s decision follows days of bipartisan criticism from lawmakers on Capitol Hill regarding Pulte’s absence of national security background. The role requires Senate approval, which legislators suggested would be unlikely if Pulte were nominated.

“He’s not going to be permanent because, you know, I don’t think he’d want to be permanent,” Trump stated during a question session in the Oval Office following a coal-related event. He described Pulte as a “very smart guy” and mentioned he might examine previous elections that Trump alleges, without credible evidence, were “rigged” against him.

Trump indicated that other potential nominees are being evaluated for the position. “We’re interviewing people right now,” he stated.

Pulte, whose grandfather established PulteGroup, has generated controversy within the administration through his role as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and his supervision of mortgage entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In his current position, Pulte has targeted Trump’s perceived political opponents over alleged mortgage fraud and has publicly criticized Jerome Powell, whose Federal Reserve chairman tenure recently concluded following months of attacks from Trump and Pulte over interest rate policies. The federal housing finance regulator also promoted a 50-year mortgage concept that failed because it would delay wealth accumulation through homeownership.

Senators from both parties voiced reservations about Pulte’s qualifications for overseeing the coordination of 18 federal agencies handling domestic and international security matters. Trump’s original director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, stepped down last month due to her husband’s cancer diagnosis.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, stated the national intelligence director position shouldn’t be “weaponized” and requires leadership by “professionals.”

Republican Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and John Cornyn of Texas, who are each leaving the chamber after this year’s elections, also expressed concerns about Pulte.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged reports that he had threatened to oppose Pulte in September of 2025, demonstrating the tensions the federal housing finance director created within the administration.

However, Pulte maintains a strong relationship with Trump as a regular Air Force One passenger.

“He’s a person who’s got high integrity,” Trump said Thursday about Pulte.

Several days following California’s primary election, voters across the state find themselves in a routine waiting game — anticipating results for key contests including the gubernatorial and Los Angeles mayoral races.

The ongoing uncertainty in these high-stakes competitions, along with multiple tight congressional battles, comes as no shock since California consistently requires days or weeks to complete vote tallying. President Donald Trump’s complaints about the counting timeline and fraud allegations, which he voiced Thursday, also follow his established pattern of criticism.

However, Trump’s Thursday declaration that his Department of Justice was examining the count marked an unusual escalation: “Why the vote counting DELAY???,” the president wrote on his social media platform.

Trump implied that California’s Democrats were manipulating results to prevent two of his preferred candidates — Republican Steve Hilton seeking the governor’s office and Spencer Pratt running for mayor in the nonpartisan contest — from securing top-two positions needed to advance to November’s general election.

“You see what’s happening in California, they’re rigging the election,” he stated to reporters during a Thursday Oval Office event.

The president’s social media statements drew a reaction from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose communications team shared a CNN segment detailing how the nation’s largest state emphasizes precision and voter access rather than rapid results, extending the counting period.

“For the record: we wish the votes were counted faster, too,” Newsom’s office responded.

A representative from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles refused to discuss whether any investigation into ballot counting was underway.

California’s legal framework essentially requires an extended counting process. Mail ballots go to all qualified voters — approximately 23 million people — and the state maintains flexible return policies. Ballots receive counting if postmarked by Election Day and delivered to election offices within a week.

Local election workers can only begin the extensive process of confirming late mail ballot authenticity and counting them after polling locations close and most Americans have retired for the night.

When voter signatures on ballot envelopes don’t align with official records, election administrators must provide those voters opportunities to verify their identity for ballot inclusion, further extending final tallies.

“We might not like how California administers its elections (and I don’t),” Stephen Richer, a former Republican election official in Maricopa County, Arizona, posted on social platform X. “But that doesn’t make it fraud.”

Newsom approved legislation last year mandating vote counting completion within 13 days instead of the previous 30-day limit. Counties seeking extensions must notify the Secretary of State’s Office with justification for delays.

This timeline fails to satisfy the president: “The Dumocrats are at it again!” he posted on his social media account. “They are trying to STEAL THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PRIMARY, AND THE MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES, PRIMARY, AWAY FROM TWO GREAT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. Here we go with the very late and massive numbers of MAIL IN BALLOTS.”

State Assemblymember Marc Berman, a Democrat who authored the accelerated counting legislation, called Trump’s statements disappointing and “a lie.”

“While Trump is laser focused on lying about our elections and undermining voters’ faith in our democracy, so that Republicans can then try to pass policies like Voter ID laws that make it harder for people to vote, our priority is to make sure that every validly cast ballot is counted,” he declared in a statement.

Several analysts cautioned that Tuesday’s primary tallying might extend longer than previous election cycles.

“What compounds things this time around is that Democrats have been holding on to their ballots,” explained Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor.

California’s millions of Democratic voters demonstrated unusual reluctance to submit ballots early this year, seemingly delaying decisions until final moments in the continuously shifting gubernatorial contest. The state uses a primary system where the leading two vote recipients, regardless of party affiliation, proceed to the general election, and Democrats had spent months worrying that numerous Democratic candidates would divide support, potentially allowing two Republicans to claim both advancing positions.

Democratic voters seemed to postpone choices until seeing which candidates gained momentum. The substantial volume of late ballots will likely extend the delay in obtaining complete results even further.

Although millions of votes have been processed, remaining uncounted ballots carry the greatest significance for tight competitions.

Despite California’s overwhelming Democratic lean, the state has hosted some of America’s closest congressional contests, occasionally determined by mere hundreds of votes, making winner determination impossible until the weeks-long counting concludes. In 2024, one House contest remained undecided until December.

Primary elections like Tuesday’s create additional complexity. The crucial information includes not just the leading vote recipient but also the runner-up. Determining true race outcomes requires sufficient vote tallies to definitively identify first and second place finishers.

The massive influx of late mail ballots counted last creates another consequence: final vote totals become increasingly Democratic. This occurs because Republicans more frequently return ballots early or vote in person on Election Day, with those ballots counted first.

The progressive shift toward Democratic candidates as counting continues has generated various conspiracy theories.

Republicans have consistently criticized California’s counting methods, despite GOP success in close House races statewide in 2024. The Republican National Committee has pursued legal challenges in other states questioning the validity of counting mail ballots arriving after Election Day, with the U.S. Supreme Court expected to address the matter this month.

However, concerns about California’s vote counting extend beyond partisan lines. Voting rights advocates have pressed state legislators to increase funding for local election offices to process the flood of late ballots more quickly.

“The Legislature needs to throw a lot more money to get the count quicker,” Hasen stated.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump announced Thursday that plans are underway to construct a promenade addition to the Lincoln Memorial in the nation’s capital.

The president made the announcement during remarks, revealing the upcoming construction project at the iconic Washington monument.

WASHINGTON — House lawmakers are preparing to approve legislation providing assistance to Ukraine and imposing sanctions on Russia’s economy, even as GOP leadership opposes the measure, arguing it could damage ongoing negotiations aimed at achieving stronger results.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., aims to solidify American support for Ukraine by delivering more than $1 billion in security and reconstruction assistance. An additional $8 billion would be made available for Ukraine’s defense through loan programs.

This vote represents the second significant foreign policy disagreement this week between the House and President Donald Trump. The action follows the House’s first-ever approval of a war powers resolution targeting U.S. military operations against Iran.

Advocates managed to bring the Ukraine measure to a vote by collecting 218 signatures through a discharge petition, a parliamentary procedure that enables a House majority to circumvent leadership control.

While historically unsuccessful, House members have employed this petition strategy during this Congress to advance legislation releasing government documents on Jeffrey Epstein and extending healthcare subsidies for Affordable Care Act participants, although the healthcare measure stalled in the Senate.

Wednesday evening’s initial procedural vote on the Ukraine legislation succeeded 218-204, with six Republicans and one independent joining all Democrats in support.

Meeks emphasized the vote’s significance, stating the Ukrainian people need to understand “that the United States of America is not going turn its back on them, that the people of Ukraine know that we will stand with them against Russia.”

“We can’t let them down,” Meeks declared.

Supporters hope House passage will pressure the Senate to act similarly, though they recognize Senate approval is unlikely without Trump’s backing.

“It’s probably not going to get 60 votes in the Senate, but it’s going to hopefully force the Senate to address the issue,” stated Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., who signed the discharge petition and supported advancing the bill. “It’s going to send a great message to the soldiers of Ukraine.”

Fitzpatrick added the vote would signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin that “we do have a pulse here, that we do care about Ukraine and that we are going to utilize our authority to help them.”

As the conflict continues, Congressional Ukraine supporters face increasing challenges in securing additional financial support for the country’s defense efforts.

According to the most recent quarterly inspector general report for Operation Atlantic Resolve, the United States has authorized approximately $195 billion for the Ukraine response, with roughly 25% allocated to replenishing American military weapon stockpiles. The most recent major Ukraine support legislation passed in April 2024, though smaller amounts have been incorporated into yearly spending bills since then.

GOP leadership has encouraged members to vote against the legislation. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., indicated ongoing good-faith discussions between Congress and the White House regarding Ukraine support, characterizing these negotiations as complex.

“I think they are going to yield positive results, but you set that back if you pass legislation that doesn’t go as far as the negotiations are going,” Scalise explained.

The conflict stemming from Russia’s comprehensive invasion of its neighboring country has lasted more than four years with no resolution apparent. Recently, both nations have attempted to gain advantages through long-range missile attacks.

American-led peace initiatives have collapsed due to lack of progress on fundamental disagreements and as the Iran conflict diverted Washington’s focus. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy agreed to an unconditional ceasefire requested by Trump, but Putin declined.

Senate Ukraine-related activity has centered on legislation imposing comprehensive tariffs and secondary sanctions on nations purchasing Russian oil, gas, uranium and other exports that fund Russia’s military operations. However, this bill has stalled.

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona’s highest court has rejected prosecutors’ attempt to appeal a ruling requiring the state’s fake elector case to return to a grand jury, dealing another blow to efforts to prosecute Mark Meadows, President Donald Trump’s former chief of staff, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and other defendants connected to the 2020 presidential election.

The court’s decision represents yet another obstacle for Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes, who continues facing challenges advancing this complex case through the judicial system. Officials from Mayes’ office announced they will present the entire case to a grand jury once more instead of abandoning the prosecution altogether.

This latest development follows the dismissal of comparable cases in Michigan and Georgia by courts there, along with a special prosecutor’s decision to drop federal charges in late 2024 that accused Trump of plotting to reverse the 2020 election outcome. Related prosecutions involving fake elector schemes continue moving forward in Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin.

A Phoenix-area lower court judge determined in May that the initial grand jury reviewing this case had not been presented with the text of the Electoral Count Act, legislation from the 19th century that establishes procedures for certifying presidential elections and which defendants cited in their legal defense.

Attorneys representing the defendants contended that this law permitted multiple groups of electors to submit their votes to Congress when election results faced disputes, although lawmakers modified the statute in 2022 to clarify that states may only send one group of electors and that governors must provide approval.

No progress has occurred in Arizona’s case at the trial court level since mid-May.

Former President Joe Biden secured victory in Arizona during 2020 with a margin of 10,457 votes.

The Trump administration announced that renovations to Washington D.C.’s Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool have been completed, with plans to refill the iconic basin with water by this weekend.

According to the administration, the painting work was finished on Wednesday, transforming the shallow pool to what President Donald Trump describes as “American flag blue.” In a court document, officials stated the water filling process should be completed no later than Sunday.

However, as of Thursday morning, construction equipment remained visible in the empty basin with no water present.

While Trump has estimated the renovation costs between $1.5 million and $2 million, government records reveal contracts totaling at least $14.8 million have been issued for the project. The president first announced the initiative in April during an Oval Office event, explaining that a visiting friend from Germany had criticized the pool’s appearance as dark and unappealing.

This renovation represents another effort by Trump to make lasting changes to the nation’s capital, joining other projects including the demolition of the White House East Wing for a ballroom and proposed construction of an arch connecting the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington National Cemetery.

The historic reflecting pool stretches more than 2,000 feet and serves as a centerpiece between the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument. Originally constructed in the 1920s, the site gained historical significance as the location where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963.

Before its current renovation, the basin contained approximately 6.5 million gallons of water, equivalent to about 10 Olympic-sized swimming pools, according to the National Park Service. A previous 2012 upgrade installed circulation and filtration systems that use water from the nearby Tidal Basin rather than the city’s drinking water supply. The region is currently experiencing drought conditions.

Political opponents have criticized the Republican president for focusing on personal projects instead of addressing voter concerns like living costs as the November elections approach. Some critics have also suggested the renovation makes the memorial pool resemble a recreational swimming facility.

The Cultural Landscape Foundation, a Washington-based nonprofit organization, filed a lawsuit last month seeking to halt work on what they called the “dark grey” reflecting pool. The organization argued the new paint color created a “theme park” atmosphere.

No judicial ruling has been issued in the case, but the Trump administration informed the court Wednesday that construction was complete and water filling would begin by Sunday.

The Interior Department, which supervises the Park Service, did not respond to requests for additional information.

While June remains widely celebrated as Pride Month, several Republican governors across the nation have established competing designations for the same timeframe that advocacy groups on both sides interpret as deliberate counter-messaging.

The governors leading Indiana and Tennessee have established June as Nuclear Family Month, celebrating household structures consisting of “one husband, one wife and any biological, adopted or fostered children,” though they haven’t explicitly stated this was meant to override Pride recognition.

Alabama has designated the month as Strong Families Month, timed to align with Father’s Day. Gov. Kay Ivey’s official declaration states that fathers serve as “the head of the household” and that “homes led by a father and mother provide children with the structure and discipline necessary to succeed throughout life.”

Utah and Arkansas governors have labeled June as Fidelity Month, highlighting devotion to faith, nation and family — without specifying what family structures should look like.

A recent post from Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ X account shared a link about her declaration with text reading, “Another Red State is Counter-Programming Pride Month.”

Neither Sanders nor the other governors have responded to Associated Press inquiries about their reasoning for selecting June for these proclamations.

Legislative efforts in at least four additional Republican-led states have proposed bills this year to establish June as Fidelity Month.

The concept originates from an organization created by Robert P. George, a Princeton University jurisprudence professor known for conservative scholarship. His organization declined interview requests.

Speaking to the National Catholic Register in 2023, he stated that “nobody gets a monopoly on a particular day or a particular month.”

June Pride festivities, featuring parades, festivals and performances, started in 1970 to commemorate the anniversary of the violent police confrontation at the Stonewall Inn, a New York City gay establishment, and have since spread globally.

“You can call it whatever you want, but one thing you’re not going to do is take away our pride or take away our joy,” stated Jordan Braxton, co-president of USA Prides.

Since Bill Clinton in 1999, every Democratic president has issued annual Pride proclamations — while no Republican president has done so.

Among GOP governors, Utah’s Spencer Cox stands out for issuing Pride proclamations in 2021, 2022 and 2023. In 2024, he called June a “Month of Bridge Building” before switching to Fidelity Month this year.

Recent polling indicates that two decades of growing acceptance for same-sex marriages and relationships has stalled — primarily due to increased Republican opposition.

Last year, U.S. Rep. Mary Miller, an Illinois Republican, proposed legislation to establish June as Family Month while eliminating Pride Month recognition, arguing “Americans are inundated with perverse Pride Month displays and events throughout the month of June that denigrate the nuclear family.” The resolution never received a vote.

Supporters see these state initiatives as chances for cultural change.

Kevin Roberts, president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said in an interview that conservative recognitions are beneficial because Pride celebrations “were going so far as to make it difficult to celebrate traditional marriage.”

Tennessee’s legislative resolution and gubernatorial approval doesn’t specifically reference Pride Month, while declaring the “nuclear family is under attack in our beloved State and nation.”

However, Lakie Derrick, a conservative activist who co-authored the Tennessee measure, acknowledged she specifically targeted June to oppose Pride Month, which she believes “goes against” American principles.

“We’re just reclaiming the culture, and there’s no better month to do that than in a month where the culture says we’re gonna celebrate something so opposite to what we know to be right,” Derrick explained.

Marina Lowe, who oversees legal and legislative matters for LGBTQ+ advocacy organization Equality Utah, argued that Pride Month doesn’t oppose other value-based recognitions. Many LGBTQ individuals also cherish faith and family, she noted, adding “I don’t think that these positions need to be in conflict with one another.”

In Wenatchee, Washington, a school’s Turning Point USA chapter successfully arranged for Family Month banners on light poles that previously displayed rainbow flags during June. Local gay rights organization Out NCW responded by purchasing two billboards and distributing yard signs supporting Pride, according to president AJ Soto.

Josh Coleman, president of Central Alabama Pride, which has scheduled 42 events across two weeks, said the celebrations ending with a parade on June 13 and festival June 14 won’t be impacted by the proclamation.

“It’s not lost upon LGBTQ people when elected leaders don’t recognize or value the visibility of the community,” he explained. “That’s why Pride started in the first place — to make sure the community had a community.”

Alex Richardson, board chair at Indy Pride in Indianapolis, views the governor’s proclamation as a “swipe.” Yet he believes the local events celebrate some values the governor supports.

“Sure, the governor’s right, the nuclear family is worth celebrating,” Richardson said. “But I think so is the grandmother who raises her grandchildren, or the chosen family that shows up when a blended family can’t, or won’t, … or the weird blended households that are held together by love and effort.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump plans to unveil a nearly $700 million federal investment package Thursday aimed at revitalizing America’s declining coal sector through support for power plants and export facilities.

According to a White House official, the administration will invoke Cold War-era defense legislation to back 13 coal facilities nationwide and facilitate construction of new coal plants in Alaska and West Virginia — marking the first such projects built in the U.S. since 2013. The funding will also revive a shuttered coal plant in Maryland and advance a stalled coal export facility in Oakland, California.

The combined initiatives are projected to generate or preserve over 14,000 positions across coal, construction, railroad and shipping sectors, the White House official noted. The official requested anonymity as they lacked authorization to reveal specifics before Trump’s scheduled Thursday afternoon announcement.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin are anticipated to join Trump for the White House event.

This represents Trump’s latest effort to halt the coal industry’s prolonged downturn. Last fall, the administration announced plans to make 13 million acres of federal territory available for coal extraction and allocate $625 million for upgrading or restarting coal power facilities. Shortly after returning to office, Trump signed executive directives to revive coal — a dependable yet polluting energy source that has steadily contracted due to environmental rules and competition from less expensive natural gas.

Bloomberg News initially disclosed the new coal funding.

Following Trump’s directives, the Energy Department has mandated fossil fuel plants in Michigan, Indiana, Colorado and Washington state continue operations beyond planned closure dates to address growing electricity needs driven by data center expansion, artificial intelligence development and electric vehicle adoption. The department has issued temporary extensions for these measures and ordered oil and gas facilities in Maryland and Pennsylvania to delay scheduled shutdowns.

Wright stated that the administration’s emergency directives keeping older coal plants running helped avert significant power outages during the severe cold snap that affected much of the nation in late January and early February.

Environmental organizations criticized the latest coal support measures, which coincide with the Trump administration’s restrictions on renewable energy — including halting offshore wind permits, eliminating clean energy tax incentives and preventing wind and solar developments on federal property.

“Propping up coal billionaires with taxpayer money is one more way for the Trump administration to put polluters first and put the rest of us at risk,” said Kit Kennedy, managing director for power at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “What’s next, a taxpayer bailout to build new phone booths?”

Kennedy and other opponents argued Trump’s directive will lead to increased electricity costs and worse air quality. “The best thing for the air, the climate and our utility bills is to let these plants retire peacefully,” she stated.

While coal previously supplied over half of America’s electricity generation, its portion fell to roughly 15% in 2024, declining from approximately 45% in 2010. Natural gas currently accounts for about 43% of U.S. electricity, with nuclear power and renewable sources like wind, solar and hydroelectric providing the balance.

American coal shipments overseas decreased during Trump’s second term’s first year, primarily because fewer exports went to China following its retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods in response to Trump’s broad tariff policies, the Energy Information Administration reported. While worldwide coal consumption reached historic highs recently, the International Energy Agency expects demand to level off or drop in upcoming years.

U.S. companies face challenges expanding into new markets due to abundant coal reserves worldwide.

Trump plans to utilize the Defense Production Act, a 1950 statute providing presidents extensive powers over industries related to national security.

Six Democratic senators have formally challenged two major tobacco corporations about their political contributions and lobbying activities following a recent shift in federal tobacco policy.

The senators sent official letters on Thursday to Reynolds American and Altria, questioning their donations and lobbying efforts directed at the Trump administration. The lawmakers accused the companies of receiving a “lucrative payday” after investing millions of dollars to gain favor with the president.

The inquiry stems from the Food and Drug Administration’s recent announcement of a new “enforcement discretion” policy. Under this approach, the agency will permit certain manufacturers to market vapes and nicotine pouches without obtaining the required legal authorization. This policy shift could potentially allow hundreds of additional vaping products to enter the marketplace and came after the White House pushed for regulatory changes.

The policy modification occurred following political contributions from both Reynolds, which operates as the American division of British American Tobacco, and Altria, with donations made as recently as April. A meeting between President Donald Trump and tobacco industry executives also took place in May.

“Money well spent,” the June 4 letters stated, claiming that the donations and lobbying activities allowed tobacco manufacturers to bypass federal regulations for selling addictive vaping products, thereby undermining the FDA’s independence.

“But for you and your shareholders, this was a lucrative payday after years of unsuccessful legislative and regulatory efforts to weaken federal tobacco oversight,” the correspondence continued, requesting specific information about donations, meetings and products that would benefit from the regulatory change.

Neither Reynolds, Altria nor the White House provided immediate responses to requests for comment.

Both companies have long argued that FDA policies have contributed to a thriving market for unauthorized devices, primarily manufactured in China. Reynolds estimates this illegal marketplace generates approximately $9.41 billion in revenue.

The tobacco companies have pursued various strategies including lobbying efforts and legal challenges, suspended sales objectives and warned they might introduce their own unauthorized products to remain competitive.

Following the “enforcement discretion” policy announcement, tobacco companies have already revealed plans to introduce new products to the market.

The letters bore the signatures of six Democratic senators: Dick Durbin of Illinois, Elizabeth Warren and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Jack Reed of Rhode Island.

WASHINGTON — John Bolton, who previously served as national security adviser in the Trump administration, has reached a plea agreement with federal prosecutors that will allow him to admit guilt to one charge of keeping classified information while potentially avoiding incarceration, according to a source with knowledge of the arrangement announced Thursday.

The plea bargain would settle criminal charges brought in October that accused Bolton of 18 separate violations involving either keeping or sharing classified materials, including personal notes resembling diary entries from his government service that authorities say he gave to family members while working on a book about his White House experience.

According to the source, who requested anonymity because the agreement hasn’t been publicly announced, Bolton would pay a $2.25 million penalty under the deal. While any jail term would be limited to five years maximum, the arrangement provides a path for him to serve no time in prison, though final sentencing decisions rest with the judge.

Bolton joins several other Trump critics who have faced prosecution during the past year under the Republican administration. Federal agents brought the investigation into public attention in August when they executed search warrants at Bolton’s Maryland residence and workplace.

A veteran figure in Republican national security policy known for his aggressive stance on projecting American strength, Bolton worked in Trump’s first term for over a year before his dismissal in 2019, after which he released a book critical of the former president.

The administration attempted without success to prevent publication of “The Room Where it Happened,” arguing the book could expose classified materials. The plea agreement Bolton will accept relates to notes he provided to family members rather than content from his published work.

Court records show a rearraignment hearing, which commonly indicates a plea deal, is set for June 26 at the federal courthouse in Greenbelt, Maryland.

The Justice Department has not provided any statement regarding the matter.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court delivered an 8-1 ruling Thursday supporting federal regulators’ authority to enforce data privacy regulations against major telecommunications firms.

The decision preserved a crucial enforcement mechanism for the Federal Communications Commission, while telecom companies secured a regulatory concession from the Republican administration that may alter the oversight environment.

Verizon and AT&T had contested a total of $100 million in fines levied after regulators found the corporations inadequately protected customer location information.

The telecommunications giants contended the FCC’s procedures violated constitutional standards by providing insufficient opportunities for them to present their defense before a jury.

While the administration supported the penalties as a vital regulatory mechanism, officials also indicated companies wouldn’t need to immediately remit the fines, representing a regulatory adjustment favoring the corporations.

The high court concurred with this approach.

“The orders at issue did not settle the carriers’ legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying he would have gone further on limiting the agency’s power.

Similar enforcement procedures are employed by other agencies, meaning a comprehensive win for AT&T and Verizon might have created broader implications, according to advocates.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has previously moved to restrict federal agency authority, including reversing a long-standing precedent that favored regulators in legal proceedings and removing another agency’s significant tool for combating securities violations.

John Bolton, who previously served as national security adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump before becoming a sharp critic, plans to enter a guilty plea regarding his handling of classified materials, CNN reported Thursday based on information from three sources with knowledge of the situation.

According to CNN’s report, Bolton will plead guilty to a single charge of unlawfully keeping sensitive national security documents and has agreed to pay fines exceeding $2 million.

Federal court documents filed Thursday show Bolton is set to appear before a judge on June 26 to enter a revised plea in his case. The court filings did not specify what plea Bolton would enter.

When initially charged on October 17, 2025, Bolton entered a not guilty plea to accusations of improperly handling classified materials.

Bolton held the position of White House national security adviser under Trump’s first administration before becoming one of the president’s harshest public critics. The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations wrote in a 2020 memoir that Trump was unsuitable for the presidency.

Federal prosecutors allege in their indictment that Bolton provided classified information to two family members for potential inclusion in a book project, including his notes from intelligence briefings and meetings with high-ranking government officials and foreign leaders.

The charges, filed in federal court in Maryland, include eight counts of transmitting national defense information and 10 counts of retaining national defense information, all violations of the Espionage Act.

Senate Republicans face a critical decision Thursday regarding President Donald Trump’s controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund during an extended voting session on a $70 billion immigration enforcement bill.

Amendment voting on the legislation is scheduled to start just before noon. Democratic lawmakers plan to force a vote aimed at eliminating what they describe as a “slush fund” benefiting Trump’s political allies, attempting to put Republicans in a difficult position given the president’s recent track record of ending political careers of lawmakers who oppose him.

“The first Democratic amendment of vote-a-rama will force every senator to answer a basic question: should taxpayer dollars fund Trump’s slush fund, or should it be eliminated once and for all?” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer’s office said in a statement.

The controversial fund, which opponents argue would enable Trump to use public money to benefit his political associates, has already been suspended by the White House and Justice Department following strong resistance from Senate Republicans.

Democratic leadership hopes their legislative strategy will damage Republicans in November’s midterm elections, where Democrats are expected to gain House control and potentially win the Senate as well.

However, it remains uncertain whether Republicans will support the Democratic amendment, which needs only 51 votes to pass but would also torpedo the three-year funding package for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol.

Republican Senators Thom Tillis and Bill Cassidy, who recently lost his reelection campaign to a Trump-endorsed opponent, are also planning to introduce their own amendments targeting the fund.

“I don’t want to join with some Democratic initiative, I want this to be led by Republicans for Republicans,” Tillis told reporters. “We’ve got a sufficient number of Republicans who have been very clear that they’ve got concerns here.”

Cassidy has additionally proposed an amendment that would cancel an agreement blocking the Internal Revenue Service from examining Trump’s tax returns.

Several recent Trump actions, including his request for $1 billion in taxpayer money for White House ballroom and security improvements and his appointment of political ally Bill Pulte as U.S. intelligence chief, have drawn public criticism from some Republican lawmakers.

Democrats are preparing additional amendments that would compel Republicans to vote on various issues including IRS tax protections, the Iran war, Trump’s trade tariffs, and immigration enforcement actions, including the deadly shootings of two U.S. citizens earlier this year.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate kicked off a lengthy voting process Thursday on legislation that would provide funding for President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement operations, pushing toward approval of three-year financing as Democrats have prevented the money for months in opposition.

The approximately $70 billion measure to finance U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol would break through the Democratic roadblock that has persisted since lawmakers sought policy reforms following the deadly shootings of two demonstrators by federal officers in January. The legislation would provide agency funding for three years, lasting until Trump’s term concludes.

However, Republicans must first overcome a series of potential amendments that Democrats intend to propose, including efforts to permanently eliminate Trump’s $1.776 billion settlement fund designed for supporters he considers victims of political persecution. Democrats announced their initial amendment Thursday morning would remove the fund and return the immigration spending measure to committee.

Senate Republicans are employing a complex procedural strategy to bypass the filibuster and approve the budget measure without any Democratic support. Yet it has required weeks to bring the bill to the Senate floor as Republicans worked through multiple hurdles to passage established by Trump and the White House — including a $1 billion White House security proposal they ultimately abandoned and strong opposition from both parties regarding the settlement fund.

“The thing we’re trying to do here is to keep the focus on funding for ICE and CBP,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune stated Wednesday evening, following the Senate’s vote to begin debating the measure. “This was narrow and targeted from the very beginning and clean, and we’re trying to maintain it that way.”

However, it remains uncertain whether Republicans will possess sufficient votes to defeat the Democratic amendments. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced this week that the fund would not proceed, and numerous GOP senators said Wednesday they were pleased with his statements.

Nevertheless, Trump, who has disagreed with Senate Republicans recently, created fresh uncertainty about the settlement’s fate Wednesday afternoon when he informed reporters that the settlement is “very important” and stated “I don’t know” whether it is terminated or postponed.

“I’d have to ask the lawyers,” he stated.

To advance legislation through the budget procedure known as reconciliation, the Senate must first conduct an extended series of votes. Democrats are utilizing that mechanism to attempt banning the settlement through law — and also defeating the immigration spending bill.

Following Trump’s remarks about the fund, Schumer wrote on X that “this is EXACTLY why” Democrats would be compelling votes to prohibit it.

Several Republicans also intended to formalize Blanche’s commitment in writing. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has indicated he will propose an amendment to prevent any effort at reviving the fund.

“We’ve got a sufficient number of Republicans who have been very clear they’ve got concerns there,” Tillis said.

Democrats argue any funding legislation for the Homeland Security Department should impose limitations on federal immigration authorities, including improved identification for federal officers and increased use of judicial warrants, among other demands.

Following the shooting of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis by federal agents, Trump accepted a Democratic proposal that the Homeland Security bill be separated from a broader spending package that became law. But bipartisan discussions failed, and the DHS funding expired in mid-February without agreement on modifications to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement methods.

Congress ultimately funded the remainder of the Homeland Security Department at April’s end with Democratic backing. But ICE and Border Patrol continued without regular funding, and Republicans initiated a fresh attempt to approve three years of financing for those agencies without Democratic votes.

Progress on the legislation was also slowed by Republican resistance to $1 billion in security funding for the White House, including for Trump’s new ballroom, that was incorporated into the original bill.

Democrats and some Republicans challenged using taxpayer funds for the extensive project, and Republicans excluded it from the final bill when released Wednesday.

Thune said he was coordinating with his GOP conference to attempt defeating any amendments and ensuring he possesses adequate votes for a simple majority to approve the bill in the 53-47 Senate.

“Keep in mind, we’ve got to keep them all together, make sure we’ve got 50 votes for it,” he said.

Republican House leaders said Wednesday they would prefer to complete the legislation before week’s end, if the Senate can finish it. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said that House leaders were conducting internal discussions about the schedule.

“We just need to make sure everybody’s there,” Scalise said.

For the first time, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a war powers resolution designed to stop American military operations against Iran, challenging President Donald Trump as several Republicans crossed party lines to join Democrats in ending the three-month conflict that has reshaped domestic and international politics.

At the same time, the Republican-controlled Senate is advancing legislation to provide funding for immigration enforcement agencies. This comes after they compelled the Trump administration to announce it would abandon its settlement fund for political allies and removed a separate White House security proposal from the bill.

Additionally, Trump announced Wednesday his intention to nominate Todd Blanche as attorney general, selecting his former personal attorney who has vigorously advanced the Republican president’s priorities while serving in an acting capacity at the Justice Department.

An unusual attraction has emerged at Bangladesh’s national zoo: an albino buffalo named Donald Trump, whose golden hair and 700-kilogram (1,500-pound) frame has been drawing visitors from across the country since his arrival last week.

The unusual pale buffalo gained fame after a farmer observed that his blonde hair tuft bore a striking resemblance to the American president’s signature hairstyle. Following a viral social media video of the light-colored horned animal, crowds began flocking to the farm outside Dhaka to witness him firsthand.

Originally destined for slaughter during the Muslim festival of sacrifice, the animal was relocated to the capital’s zoo due to security considerations, where large crowds now endure intense heat to see him.

“There is a resemblance to Donald Trump in its eyes, hairstyle, and skin color,” said Mohammed Nasim, a student in Dhaka. “And just as Donald Trump has a distinctive personality and lifestyle, this buffalo, after going viral, is now living a similar kind of life, enjoying a lot of attention and special treatment.”

The president dismissed the symbolic House vote on the war powers resolution as “meaningless.”

However, Trump expressed anger that four House Republicans sided with Democrats in supporting the measure.

“The Democrats are fueled by Trump Derangement Syndrome,” Trump said in a post on his social media site. “They would rather have our Country fail than give me another, of many, victories. The four Republicans, that’s a whole other story – They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves.”

Bessent declined to specify Wednesday whether Trump and his family would continue receiving immunity from IRS audits following the administration’s decision to scrap plans for a $1.776 billion compensation fund that would have benefited the president’s allies.

“There’s continuing litigation, and I’m unable to comment on ongoing litigation,” Bessent told lawmakers at the Senate Finance Committee hearing.

This response frustrated Democratic lawmakers seeking clarity from Bessent during a hearing supposedly centered on the Treasury Department’s budget. The hearing occurred one day after acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared to suggest that the settlement’s IRS audit immunity provision would remain active for the Republican president.

Following multiple unsuccessful attempts to obtain an answer from Bessent, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., said, “It’s been very clear you’re dodging this and you’re trying to use it as an excuse. It’s just outrageous on behalf of the American public.”

Trump announced Wednesday his plan to nominate Todd Blanche as attorney general, choosing his former personal attorney who has zealously promoted the Republican president’s agenda while heading the Justice Department in an acting capacity.

During a White House dinner, Trump revealed his intention to formally nominate Blanche on Thursday, based on a video of the gathering shared on social media by a White House aide.

“We are going to make him permanent attorney general,” Trump said at the Rose Garden event.

Blanche joined the Justice Department as deputy attorney general and was promoted following Bondi’s removal after her unsuccessful attempts to prosecute Trump’s perceived political adversaries. While Blanche maintained he wasn’t campaigning for the permanent position, his high-profile actions since assuming leadership clearly demonstrated his commitment to proving his allegiance to Trump.

The Republican-controlled Senate is proceeding with legislation to fund immigration enforcement agencies after compelling the Trump administration to announce it would eliminate its settlement fund for political allies and removing a separate White House security provision from the bill.

Wednesday’s Senate vote of 53-46 initiated debate on the approximately $70 billion bill to fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. The legislation faced weeks of delays as Republican senators worked through various passage obstacles created by President Donald Trump and the White House, but they are now moving rapidly toward approval after reducing it to its original scope.

“Right now, the goal is to get the base bill across the finish line,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.

Nevertheless, Republicans must secure sufficient votes to defeat multiple amendments that Democrats — and some Republicans — pledge to propose for permanently prohibiting Trump’s $1.776 billion settlement fund.

Trump is receiving warnings from both opponents and supporters that he’s becoming trapped regarding the Iran conflict, a military engagement he promoted as a short-term operation but which has evolved into a stalemate.

Nearly a week has passed since U.S. and Iranian negotiators reached a preliminary agreement to extend the conflict’s ceasefire by 60 days and begin new discussions on Iran’s nuclear program, requiring Trump’s approval.

Yet Trump has demanded unspecified modifications to the agreement, and Iranian officials — possibly calculating that he is hesitant to resume bombing after depleting key weapons systems — show no indication of yielding to new demands.

Recent strikes by both the U.S. and Iran this week have heightened concerns that the ceasefire might fail. Trump minimized the importance on Wednesday.

Growing worry exists within the administration and among key advisers and allies that Trump now faces a difficult situation, according to a U.S. official and another person familiar with the administration’s internal discussions.

Wednesday marked the first time the House passed a war powers resolution aimed at stopping U.S. military action against Iran, challenging Trump as several Republicans joined Democrats to end the three-month conflict that has transformed politics domestically and internationally.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had attempted to avoid an outcome demonstrating increasing opposition to the conflict, abruptly halting floor proceedings two weeks earlier when the resolution neared approval. However, dissatisfaction has only intensified as the conflict continues and Trump struggles to negotiate a peace plan.

“Enough is enough,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who led the effort.

“It is time for the president to do the right thing,” he said. “The people are tired of suffering because of his war of choice — suffering at the gas pump, suffering at the supermarkets.”

WASHINGTON — Federal officials have shifted their approach toward higher education, moving away from targeting individual campuses to proposing sweeping regulatory changes that would impact universities across the nation.

Over the past year, the administration launched numerous investigations into college campuses and threatened to withdraw federal funding from institutions that didn’t align with the Republican president’s political objectives. Now, officials are pursuing broader regulatory reforms that would affect thousands of schools simultaneously.

“We’re coming over the higher education system and course correcting,” Nicholas Kent, undersecretary for the Education Department, told the Associated Press. He explained that unlike probes focusing on specific campuses, this new strategy has the capability “to affect 6,000 institutions.”

This tactical change follows court decisions that prevented the administration from implementing severe financial penalties against Harvard and the University of California, Los Angeles. The shift also comes after numerous civil rights attorneys who typically oversee university investigations left their positions. Despite these setbacks, the president continues his effort to eliminate what he describes as “wokeness” run amok in academia.

The regulatory approach targets similar issues previously addressed through investigations, including diversity, equity and inclusion programs, transgender athletes, antisemitism, and various practices viewed as anti-white discrimination.

A new Education Department proposal would restructure the accreditation system that determines which colleges qualify for federal funding. The plan would mandate that accreditors ensure colleges maintain “intellectual diversity,” which represents a coded request for increased conservative representation.

Higher education officials express concern about a proposal from the Office of Management and Budget requiring agencies to confirm federal grants “advance the President’s policy priorities.” Officials would verify grants aren’t supporting DEI initiatives, “anti-American values,” or anything rejecting “the sex binary in humans,” according to last week’s proposal. An OMB spokesperson stated the rule promotes transparency.

The General Services Administration has proposed another rule requiring federal grant recipients, including universities and their contractors, to verify they don’t maintain DEI policies the administration considers illegal.

The Education Department has introduced at least 11 new proposed regulations, including one designed to “streamline the process” for reducing funding to schools violating the administration’s civil rights law interpretations.

Creating federal regulations involves months of bureaucratic debate and procedures. However, unlike previous strategies that pushed presidential authority limits, the rulemaking process represents an established method for implementing federal policy without congressional approval.

Some higher education leaders view this change positively. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education representing college and university presidents, said the new approach allows for dialogue, unlike last year’s confrontational tactics.

“We’re playing a game that has rules and referees, and that’s good,” said Mitchell, a former Education Department official under President Barack Obama, a Democrat. “It gives us an opportunity to talk about where we might agree with the administration. That was impossible to do when these were just straight-on attacks.”

Meanwhile, the Education and Justice departments have announced fewer higher education investigations, releasing statements about roughly a dozen at U.S. universities this year. During the same period last year, they announced more than 70, according to AP analysis. The precise number of new investigations remains unclear since a public database hasn’t been updated since January 2025.

Kent stated the Education Department will continue opening investigations when necessary, describing it as using a “scalpel to cut out the bad.” He noted that colleges have begun complying with the administration’s priorities.

“Folks realize that it’s a new day and that we’re paying attention,” Kent said.

Most investigations launched last year remain active. The White House reached agreements with Columbia, Brown, and several other institutions, but most cases remain unresolved without public updates for months.

Catherine Lhamon, who directed the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights under President Joe Biden, a Democrat, characterized the investigation surge as “performance art” that attracted attention but achieved little impact. She believes the administration is retreating after facing school resistance.

“It stopped putting itself in a position to lose,” said Lhamon, who currently leads the Edley Center on Law and Democracy at the University of California, Berkeley.

However, some conflicts have escalated. The White House has intensified battles with Harvard and UCLA after federal judges prevented the administration from eliminating research funding from these campuses.

The Justice Department has filed four lawsuits against Harvard and UCLA since February, claiming both institutions permitted antisemitism and that Harvard withheld admissions data requested by the administration. Leadership at both universities maintains they have actively combated antisemitism.

A White House official attributed the investigation reduction partly to increased focus on college admissions. The administration has been developing cases against colleges allegedly considering race in admissions decisions despite the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling. These investigations require more time due to extensive data collection needs, according to the official who spoke anonymously about internal strategy.

Some of these cases are now producing results.

The Justice Department recently determined that medical schools at Yale and UCLA discriminated against white and Asian American students by supposedly preferring Black and Latino applicants. The universities have defended their admissions procedures, maintaining they were thorough and merit-based.

Officials are taking an uncompromising stance against any racial consideration in admissions, conflicting with colleges that allow students to discuss their race in application essays. In its 2023 ruling, the Supreme Court indicated schools could consider how applicants’ race relates to broader qualities.

“We are making sure,” Kent said, “that we are elevating our best and our brightest and that we’re not putting the thumb on the scale because of somebody’s skin color.”

Facing last year’s aggressive campaign, many campuses quietly implemented changes to avoid scrutiny. Some eliminated DEI offices. The NCAA moved to restrict transgender athletes. Universities from UCLA to Columbia strengthened campus protest policies after pro-Palestinian demonstrations became subjects of federal investigations.

Research has been reduced as leading schools face ongoing funding cuts.

In classrooms, there’s been a chilling effect as professors worry that their words or teachings could draw federal attention, said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors.

Still, he remains optimistic that the power balance is shifting toward universities. Students and faculty at several campuses built pressure to reject a White House invitation last fall to endorse aspects of the president’s agenda in exchange for favorable research funding access, he said. The AAUP has filed several lawsuits against the administration, including one that halted funding cuts at UCLA.

“The sector is getting its feet under it, and it’s only getting stronger,” Wolfson said. “I can promise you that we will fight them tooth and nail.”

A memorial arch proposed by President Trump is drawing criticism from those who say the structure would interfere with an important historic sight line. The planned arch would be constructed between the Lincoln Memorial and the former residence of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, according to opponents of the project.

Critics argue that placing the arch in this location would disrupt the symbolic sight line that currently exists between these two significant locations. They contend that this unobstructed view carries important meaning about national reconciliation and unity.

The controversy centers on concerns that the proposed memorial would fundamentally alter the visual connection between the Lincoln Memorial and Lee’s former home, potentially diminishing the symbolic significance that many believe this sight line represents.

CHICAGO (AP) — After more than ten years since the former president selected Chicago as the location for his presidential library project, the Obama Presidential Center is set to welcome visitors on June 19. The facility features exhibits of campaign artifacts and presidential memorabilia, while the surrounding grounds include community amenities such as a basketball court, public library branch, and children’s playground.

Here’s a breakdown of the key figures associated with the former President Barack Obama’s presidential library.

The estimated construction cost for the 225-foot museum tower and the nearly 20-acre site, funded entirely through private contributions to the Obama Foundation. This figure represents a significant increase from original projections of $350 million.

The anticipated yearly attendance for the museum, which will charge admission fees. Additionally, up to 1 million visitors annually are expected to use the complimentary facilities throughout the campus.

The estimated count of book titles that the Obamas chose themselves for inclusion in a “Presidential Reading Room” within the new public library branch located on the grounds.

The total count of campaign buttons featured in exhibits from Obama’s political campaigns, including specialized designs created for specific states.

The quantity of specially commissioned artwork created by 30 different artists.

The count of beehives located on the property. The apiary serves as part of the gardens and comprehensive landscaping throughout the campus.

CHICAGO (AP) — The personal touch of former President Barack Obama permeates every corner of his presidential museum, from its Chicago South Side setting to the textured stonework on its striking tower and the striped reading chairs that mirror those found in his personal residence.

Following a ceremonial dedication ceremony attended by dignitaries in Chicago, the Obama Presidential Center will welcome the general public on Juneteenth. Thousands of visitors — including museum staff family members, students and media representatives — have already received preview tours of the nearly 20-acre facility while workers complete final art pieces and grounds work.

The approximately $850 million development encompasses both the political career and private life of America’s first Black president. While the ticketed museum tower displays campaign artifacts and presidential memorabilia, the expansive campus’s public areas highlight other Obama priorities: a new library branch, basketball facility and picnic space with grilling stations.

“This serves as a welcoming environment where people can come to contemplate the significant moments from this presidency and the campaigns, while also gathering as a community to consider what changes you might implement in your own neighborhood,” Josh Harris, the Obama Foundation’s vice president of public engagement, explained during a recent Associated Press tour.

Here are the main highlights of the campus anticipated to attract up to 1 million annual visitors.

This presidential museum breaks new ground as the first completely digital facility of its type, abandoning traditional displays of official documents.

Visitors will instead encounter high-tech and interactive exhibits covering the campaigns, pivotal moments from Obama’s presidency and White House experiences.

Among the most popular features is a full-scale recreation of the Oval Office.

During a recent visit, a steady flow of guests, including schoolchildren, moved through the circular space, pausing to sit at the desk for photographs. The top drawer contains a handwritten letter copy from his predecessor, former President George W. Bush, and Obama’s cherished BlackBerry device.

“We aim to ensure that individuals from every background get the chance to sit at the Resolute Desk,” Harris stated. “You consider the potential that if a young community organizer from Chicago’s South Side can become president, you might become president as well.”

Additional museum sections explore the Affordable Care Act and immigration policies, alongside intimate moments such as Obama’s spontaneous singing during a 2015 memorial service for victims of a South Carolina church attack. A large display screen shows Obama performing “Amazing Grace.”

Scattered throughout are spaces for personal contemplation, which museum planners consider essential.

“We’re handing over that responsibility and encouraging people to take change back to their communities, however change might be understood, whether modest or significant,” explained Louise Bernard, the museum’s director.

During the museum’s 2021 groundbreaking ceremony, Obama anticipated one of the major attractions.

“We want this center to be more than a static museum or a source of archival research,” Obama remarked at the location. “It won’t just be a collection of campaign memorabilia or Michelle’s ballgowns, although I know everybody will come see those.”

About twelve outfits displayed on mannequins sit behind protective glass, including a black and red Narciso Rodriguez creation that the former first lady wore during 2008 Election Night in Chicago.

Guests can also feel fabric samples, including the rose gold chain mail Atelier Versace evening dress she selected for her last state dinner in 2016.

The museum sits close to where Barack Obama launched his political journey, served as a law professor at the University of Chicago, and where the family resided. Michelle Obama also spent her childhood on the South Side.

As a lifelong basketball enthusiast, Obama requested a glass-walled professional-quality basketball court for community programming.

The former first lady created a garden where lettuce and strawberry plants were growing during a recent visit. Charcoal grills will be publicly available, fulfilling Obama’s vision from community meetings almost ten years ago.

“President Obama frequently discussed his connection to Chicago and one of his cherished memories involved grilling in the park,” Harris noted.

The Obamas’ aesthetic preferences and appreciation for history are clearly visible.

The museum campus displays dozens of specially commissioned artworks while various campus sections honor notable figures. The central “John Lewis Plaza,” honoring the late congressman and civil rights champion, serves as a public meeting place.

Within a new Chicago Public Library branch, a 70-foot artwork portrays literary icons including Walt Whitman and James Baldwin. At its center stands a boy in an orange shirt being read to by Toni Morrison, representing young Obama.

The presidential reading room contains thousands of books selected by the Obamas, spanning presidential biographies to popular fiction. Obama particularly favors two tall-backed chairs with blue, yellow and black stripes, chosen by the former president as excellent reading chairs resembling ones in his home.

Admission costs $30, the steepest price among all U.S. presidential museums or libraries. The Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in California follows at $29.

Obama Foundation executives justify the pricing for the cutting-edge facility.

The neighboring Griffin Museum of Science and Industry charges $25.95. In downstate Illinois, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield costs $15.

Besides complimentary days and Illinois resident discounts, Obama Foundation representatives emphasize that most campus areas are free, with only four museum tower floors requiring admission.

Visitors can freely explore the campus, utilize the playground, library, sledding hill or grilling facilities. The tower’s uppermost floor, offering sweeping views of the nation’s third-largest city, is also complimentary.

“The concept behind this institution, this campus, centered on making it available to the greatest number of people possible,” Harris said.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is receiving criticism from both political opponents and supporters who warn he’s becoming trapped in a difficult position regarding the Iran conflict, a military engagement he initially described as a short operation that has now entered a prolonged stalemate.

Almost a week has passed since American and Iranian negotiators reached a preliminary deal to extend the current ceasefire by 60 days and begin fresh discussions about Iran’s nuclear activities, an agreement that needed Trump’s approval.

However, Trump has requested unspecified modifications to the deal, and Iranian leaders — possibly believing the Republican president is hesitant to resume bombing after depleting crucial weapons stockpiles — appear unwilling to accommodate additional requirements.

Recent strikes between the U.S. and Iran this week have sparked new worries that the ceasefire might fail. Trump minimized these concerns on Wednesday.

“It’s a different part of the world,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “You know, I’d say in that part of the world, a ceasefire is when you’re shooting in a more moderate manner.”

This uncertain situation comes after Trump has repeatedly claimed since the 14-day ceasefire began on April 7 — after 38 days of U.S. and Israel attacks on Iran — that an agreement is imminent and that Iranian leaders are desperate for a settlement. Trump suggested on Wednesday that something might materialize “over the weekend.”

Without a temporary agreement in place to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, worldwide energy costs continue to be high and are contributing to global concerns about the effects of increased expenses from the three-month war on food, fuel and other commodities.

Following multiple reports this week that Iran was ending discussions, Trump told CNBC he “couldn’t care less” if negotiations had stalled and even suggested they had become “boring.”

Growing worry exists within the administration and among key advisers and allies that Trump now faces a difficult situation, according to a U.S. official and another person familiar with the administration’s internal discussions, both of whom spoke to The Associated Press anonymously to discuss private conversations.

He’s caught between Democrats exploiting oil prices and warnings from hawkish supporters that an early withdrawal from the conflict would represent surrender.

Trump is privately receiving advice from other Republican lawmakers, Pentagon officials and Gulf allies that returning to the bombing strategy would be unwise.

Those recommending against resuming military operations point out that the U.S. has depleted ammunition too quickly. Restocking some essential weapons systems could require three years.

Meanwhile, Gulf allies worry that Iran will strike back against them and their vital infrastructure and energy assets, further damaging their economies.

Simultaneously, Trump has rejected accepting a deal that looks like the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated by Democrat Barack Obama’s administration, which limited Iran’s nuclear program in return for removing international economic sanctions.

During his first presidency, Trump withdrew from the agreement, claiming it failed to permanently halt Iran’s nuclear program, ignored Iran’s ballistic missile development, and didn’t punish Iran for backing militant proxy groups throughout the Middle East.

Currently, Trump, according to those aware of internal discussions, has expressed strong feelings that he cannot make “a bad deal” and is very conscious that he’s at a critical moment where he risks damaging his legacy if he makes an error.

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly rejected the idea that Trump has been cornered or that there’s any worry within the administration about the negotiation timeline.

“These mysterious so-called ‘administration officials’ have no idea what they’re talking about — those actually involved in sensitive discussions know to trust in President Trump, who will always do what is best for U.S. national security,” Kelly said in a statement.

Israeli and hawkish allies in Washington have argued to Trump that a deal now would represent unconditional surrender, encouraging him to increase economic pressure on Iran and support Israel’s assault on the Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon.

However, Trump earlier this week in a tense call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered Israel to stop, and on Wednesday, Israel and Lebanon announced they agreed to extend a ceasefire. Hezbollah was not involved in the Israel-Lebanon discussions, which have occurred at the ambassadorial level in Washington since early last month.

Staying in the current situation with Tehran — neither fully resuming fighting nor completing an interim agreement to restart nuclear discussions — is a circumstance that Iran seems better positioned to use, argues Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the hawkish Washington think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Despite being the weaker side, Iran appears to be calculating that the longer the stalemate continues, the better their chances of “boxing in” Trump, he added.

“Either way, Tehran appears more resolute than ever to not provide Trump with a victory image, hence why it isn’t budging on the battlefield or negotiating table,” Taleblu said.

Meanwhile, Democrats are attempting to benefit from Trump’s management of the unpopular war before November’s midterm elections. The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed for the first time a symbolic resolution demanding a stop to military action against Iran, with four Republican lawmakers joining Democrats in criticizing Trump’s war.

During extensive hearings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday and Wednesday with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Democrats attacked Trump for dismissing the economic effects of the conflict on Americans and for failing to predict that Iran would close the Strait.

In one heated exchange, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker cited the unstable ceasefire as evidence that Iran holds the advantage.

“We are the strongest nation on the planet Earth, and we’re in a stalemate with Iran,” Booker said. “And now we’re begging to get back into a deal that you all trashed in the first place.”

Rubio rejected the criticism, emphasizing that Iran has been put at a disadvantage with the strikes that eliminated multiple levels of senior leadership and devastated Iran’s economy.

“There’s no one begging,” Rubio responded. “I don’t know where you’re getting this perception that Iran is stronger.”

Another Democrat, Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, focused on Trump’s comments last month that voter concerns about living costs were “not even a little bit” of a motivating factor for him to reach a deal to end the war.

The president continues to minimize the rising costs for Americans at gas stations and predict that fuel prices would drop dramatically after the conflict concludes.

Christopher Borick, the director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Pennsylvania, said that Democrats campaigning in competitive districts nationwide are already focusing on Trump’s statements about the war’s impact on Americans’ finances.

“There’s significant risk in having this thing drag on for Republicans,” Borick said. “It’s certainly going to hurt if Trump ends up in a place where the war ends and Iran’s nuclear program is in the same place. But for Republicans in some of these tough swing districts, there’s a case to be made to rip the bandage off now, get some easing in the oil markets and hope there’s enough time for voters to turn the page.”

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday evening his intention to formally nominate Todd Blanche for attorney general, selecting his former personal attorney who has been leading the Justice Department in an interim capacity.

Speaking at a White House dinner, Trump revealed plans to submit the nomination Thursday, with video of his remarks shared on social media by a White House staff member.

“We are going to make him permanent attorney general,” Trump declared during the Rose Garden gathering.

Since taking over in an acting capacity, Blanche has worked to establish himself as the top candidate for the permanent position following the dismissal of Pam Bondi in April. He has ramped up investigations targeting Trump adversaries and unveiled a proposed $1.776 billion compensation program for the president’s supporters who allegedly faced political targeting. The controversial fund sparked opposition from both parties, forcing the Justice Department to abandon the proposal earlier this week in a dramatic reversal.

Originally joining the department as deputy attorney general, Blanche was promoted after Bondi’s removal due to her unsuccessful attempts to prosecute Trump’s political enemies. Though Blanche denied seeking the top job, his high-profile decisions since assuming leadership have clearly demonstrated his commitment to Trump’s agenda.

Critics, particularly Democrats, have condemned Blanche’s approach, claiming he continues operating as Trump’s personal attorney rather than serving the public interest in his pursuit of the president’s revenge agenda. The “Anti-Weaponization Fund” also drew criticism from Senate Republicans, whose approval Blanche will require for confirmation.

On Tuesday, Blanche informed Congress the Justice Department was dropping the fund proposal after political opposition threatened to derail funding for Trump’s immigration enforcement operations.

Despite Blanche’s claims of independence from presidential influence, the Justice Department has intensified its focus on Trump’s long-standing opponents during his tenure.

In April, former FBI Director James Comey faced indictment related to a social media image showing seashells on a beach, which authorities characterized as a presidential threat. Comey has denounced the charges as politically driven and expressed expectation of additional prosecutions.

Blanche has also named Joseph diGenova, an 81-year-old former Reagan-era Justice Department prosecutor, to lead a Florida investigation examining whether former law enforcement and intelligence personnel conspired to target Trump over the past decade.

A former New York federal prosecutor, Blanche gained national recognition leading Trump’s legal defense, including during the Republican’s hush money case in New York. He has stated this experience provided him direct insight into what he describes as the weaponization of criminal justice against Trump.

Legal analysts are sounding the alarm that a recent Supreme Court ruling involving Alabama’s electoral maps could trigger additional disorder in the redistricting process nationwide.

The high court’s rejection of a lower court’s ruling represents just the most recent instance where the justices have influenced congressional boundary modifications across Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and California.

Experts worry this pattern of judicial intervention in redistricting matters could create more uncertainty as states work to finalize their electoral maps.

WASHINGTON — A man who was found guilty of participating in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot has been appointed to a position within the Pentagon’s policy division by the Trump administration, according to government officials and internal documentation.

Acting Pentagon press secretary Joel Valdez defended the hiring decision in a social media statement this week, saying “Mr. Elias Irizarry is a qualified, patriotic young professional, and we are proud to have him as a political appointee.”

The Washington Post initially broke the story of Irizarry’s appointment. He was found guilty in 2023 on a misdemeanor trespassing count following the attack on the Capitol by supporters of President Donald Trump. Court records indicate he expressed remorse during his 2023 sentencing, which resulted in a two-week jail term.

According to internal Pentagon documentation shared with The Associated Press, Irizarry has been placed within the office of the undersecretary of defense for policy. This department is responsible for delivering national security guidance and assistance regarding military strategy and planning to the defense secretary.

Valdez’s statement did not specify the duration of Irizarry’s employment, and the Pentagon refused to share additional details.

Sen. Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed outrage on social media, writing: “This administration thinks a convicted Jan. 6 rioter should be doing that kind of work?????”

Court documentation reveals that Irizarry was 19 years old and attending his freshman year at the Citadel military college in South Carolina as a Civilian Air Patrol cadet when he participated in the Capitol attack. The records indicate he entered through a damaged window, went into a conference room, carried a metal pole throughout the Capitol building, and photographed the scene before departing.

In a court document, prosecutors stated: “Because of his training, Irizarry was undoubtedly aware of the safety threat posed by a mass of angry rioters to the Congressional members and staff inside the building.”

Irizarry entered a guilty plea to the misdemeanor trespassing charge in October 2022. In March 2023, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan imposed a 14-day jail sentence.

During his sentencing hearing, Irizarry addressed the judge, saying he brought “great shame upon myself, my family and even my country,” according to court transcripts.

“The idea of Americans being willing to fight other Americans and tear down the very institutions that millions of other Americans sacrificed and built and protect is horrible. It is something I have to live with being a part of,” he stated.

Irizarry is not alone among January 6 riot participants who have secured positions in the Trump administration.

Former FBI agent Jared Wise, who faced charges for joining the crowd, was brought on at the Justice Department last year as an adviser to the department’s pardon attorney.

Wise was undergoing trial in Washington when Trump resumed office in January and issued pardons, reduced sentences, or ordered case dismissals for nearly all 1,600 individuals charged in connection with the attack. Wise’s case was dropped before jury deliberations concluded.

In April, he posted on social media about his resignation from the department, explaining: “I returned to Washington to fully expose the abuses by the FBI and DOJ against J6 defendants, but it became clear that this will only happen from outside of government. So I left and will do so.”

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security will extend the training period for new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers starting next month, Secretary Markwayne Mullin announced Wednesday during a congressional hearing.

When questioned about reports of shortened training programs for ICE recruits, Mullin stated the department would restore training from the current 42 days back to 72 days.

“July 1st. We bring it back up. We had to rewrite the curriculum. All training starting July 1st will be back up to the regular standards,” Mullin said. The secretary did not explain the reasoning behind the timing of this change or respond to criticisms about the current training schedule.

The agency had modified its training procedures as part of an effort to rapidly recruit and prepare an additional 10,000 deportation officers, funded by billions of dollars allocated by Congress last summer. The agency previously employed approximately 6,500 deportation officers.

These changes sparked accusations that the department was compromising training quality to deploy officers more quickly, which both Homeland Security and ICE officials consistently disputed.

In February, Ryan Schwank, a former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorney who oversaw training for new deportation officers, criticized the agency’s preparation program as “deficient, defective and broken.”

Speaking at a Democratic-sponsored forum, Schwank alleged that the department had dismantled the training curriculum for new deportation officers, reducing its length while being dishonest about their actions.

“DHS told the public the new cadets receive all the training they need to perform their duties, that no critical material or standards have been cut,” he said. “This is a lie. ICE made the program shorter, and they removed so many essential parts that what remains is a dangerous husk.”

Both ICE and Homeland Security officials have disputed claims that new recruits were receiving inadequate preparation. Responding to Schwank’s statements, Homeland Security emphasized that officers received firearms training, learned “de-escalation tactics” and received constitutional instruction. Officials also maintained that no training hours were reduced.

During an August visit to the ICE training facility in Georgia with media representatives, acting ICE director Todd Lyons acknowledged the agency had implemented changes to make the process more efficient but rejected suggestions that standards were lowered.

Department officials explained they expanded training at the federal facility to six days weekly, incorporated additional instruction before and after recruits’ arrival at the facility, and eliminated a Spanish language requirement.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton is positioning California as a state filled with untapped promise that has been mismanaged by Democratic control as he campaigns to become the first GOP governor in over a decade and a half.

“We have a responsibility to revive California so it is once again that symbol of everything that is great about our nation: energy and optimism and ambition,” he declared Tuesday during an election night address in Southern California.

By Wednesday, Hilton expressed confidence about advancing to the November general election while ballots were still being tallied. California’s primary system places all contenders on one ballot regardless of party affiliation, with the top two vote-getters moving forward to the general election.

As of Wednesday afternoon, The Associated Press had not declared a winner in the primary race. Early results showed Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra in the lead, with Democrat Tom Steyer trailing close behind. California typically sees significant ballot updates following Election Day as mail-in and drop-off votes arrive and get processed, sometimes altering election results.

Hilton, who lacks experience in elected positions, has vowed to shake up the state’s established political system, which he claims has abandoned Californians who cannot afford living costs in the notoriously pricey state. The candidate is relatively new to both California politics and California itself. He relocated to the state in 2012 from the United Kingdom, where he served as an advisor to Conservative Party leaders including former Prime Minister David Cameron. He hosted a Fox News program from 2017 to 2023 and obtained U.S. citizenship in 2021.

Should Hilton make it to November, he confronts significant challenges in a state that last elected a Republican governor when Arnold Schwarzenegger departed office in 2011. Currently, Democrats represent 45% of registered voters while Republicans account for just 25%. Despite these statistics, Hilton maintains he can overcome the odds.

“When people say, ‘How are you going to win in California as a Republican?’ My question is, how will a Democrat win based on the record that they are putting before the people?” he questioned reporters outside the state Capitol on Wednesday.

His campaign platform includes commitments to reduce costs across sectors from gasoline to housing, cut income taxes, establish a loan program for first-time homebuyers, and maintain current in-state tuition rates at public universities.

Another potential hurdle in attracting voters outside the typical Republican base comes from President Donald Trump’s backing.

“I know Steve — He is a hard driving WINNER, and he will turn California around, quickly — and the Federal Government will be there, with him, to help!” Trump wrote in a social media post.

Though Trump’s endorsement likely strengthened Hilton’s Republican primary support, it may prove problematic in November given the president’s low approval ratings in a state he frequently criticizes. Throughout primary debates and campaign events, Hilton has downplayed Trump’s endorsement since receiving it in April. However, he indicated enthusiasm about potentially having a cooperative federal partner if elected.

“It’s about, what does that endorsement mean for the practical things we can get?” Hilton explained Wednesday, noting he would collaborate with federal authorities to attempt lowering gas prices and eliminating government waste to enable tax reductions.

Hilton’s pledge to restore the state to an undefined era when conditions were better for most residents echoes Trump’s familiar “Make America Great Again” message.

During the primary campaign, Hilton competed against Republican Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff, for GOP support.

In the campaign’s closing phase, Hilton cautioned about the potential for Becerra and Steyer to both advance to the general election, eliminating Republican representation. Becerra highlighted his extensive political background as evidence of his leadership capabilities, while Steyer emphasized his progressive advocacy record to show how he would support struggling families.

However, Hilton argued that neither opponent would change the established order following years of Democratic governance.

“The progressive experiment in governance — we can see the results. It’s a disappointment all around,” he stated. “I don’t know how much longer we have to wait for this experiment to actually work.”

WASHINGTON — In a historic first, the U.S. House of Representatives voted Wednesday to pass a war powers resolution aimed at stopping military action against Iran, delivering a sharp rebuke to President Donald Trump as several Republicans crossed party lines to join Democrats in ending the three-month conflict that has reshaped domestic and international politics.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had attempted to block an outcome that would demonstrate growing opposition to the war, abruptly halting floor proceedings two weeks earlier when the resolution appeared headed for passage. However, dissatisfaction has continued to mount as the conflict continues and Trump faces challenges in negotiating a peace agreement.

Wednesday’s vote tally stood at 215-208, though what happens next remains unclear. Trump would probably veto any congressional measure aimed at restricting his authority as commander-in-chief. Nevertheless, the count, which saw four Republicans side with Democrats, represented a clear rejection of the president’s military strategy, prompting applause to break out on the House floor.

“This reckless and costly war of choice needs to end today,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York stated earlier this week.

“All we need are a handful of Republicans to join us and we can end this reckless and costly war of choice — a war that has cost the American taxpayer over $100 billion — that’s extraordinary — and left our country in a weaker position relative to Iran.”

This marks the fourth attempt by the House to restrict the U.S. military campaign against Iran. The Senate moved forward with its own war powers resolution last month when several GOP senators broke with the Republican president in an uncommon display of political resistance from within his party.

With each Democratic push for the war powers resolution, vote counts have gradually increased as political discomfort with the U.S. military engagement grows. Trump had run for president pledging to conclude U.S. military involvement overseas and concentrate on domestic priorities, but the conflict has redirected focus back to the Middle East.

Johnson maintained that Trump remains “laser focused” on domestic matters, especially with midterm elections approaching that will decide congressional control.

The speaker revealed he spent three hours at the White House with the president this week as Trump seeks allied assistance to reopen the Strait of Hormuz for commercial traffic, particularly oil shipments.

Following the U.S. decision to join Israel in launching Feb. 28 attacks on Iran, Americans have experienced rising fuel costs, contributing to inflationary pressures on consumer expenses.

Iran has succeeded in disrupting maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway for a significant portion of global oil, natural gas and related commodities like fertilizer.

“We’re working on that final piece,” said Johnson, R-La. “The entire world has an interest in the Strait of Hormuz being reopen for commerce. That what he’s working on.”

Although a ceasefire was announced in April, it remains fragile and unpredictable. Negotiations for a more lasting resolution to the hostilities have stalled, made increasingly complex by Israel’s expanding conflict with Iran-supported Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon. At the same time, military exchanges between the U.S and Iran persist.

The House war powers resolution would not immediately halt the conflict, but it would represent a symbolic and potentially legal move against additional military operations.

The measure now moves to the Senate, where four Republican senators last month joined Democrats in advancing similar legislation to limit the U.S. campaign against Iran. The Senate has not yet held a final vote to pass or defeat its own war powers resolution.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio cautioned Wednesday during testimony before a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that Iranians would believe the administration’s “hands are going to be tied” if Congress passed a war powers resolution. He argued they would think “we won’t be able to do anything to them, so why make a deal?”

This isn’t the only national security action Congress is pursuing as Democrats, though in the minority, attempt to gain Republican support for measures extending beyond the Iran conflict.

The House is also voting Wednesday on another Democratic-sponsored initiative that would authorize U.S. assistance for Ukraine’s military operations in its fight against Russia and help rebuild the devastated nation. The House this week is also anticipated to review a war powers resolution to prevent U.S. involvement in Lebanon.

While Congress holds constitutional authority to declare war, the president also possesses commander-in-chief powers to engage in military operations, establishing a legal conflict over which governmental branch has final authority in war and peace decisions.

According to the war powers act, the White House has 60 days to obtain congressional approval for military action. The administration has suggested that since a ceasefire has been declared in the current Iran conflict, hostilities have ended.

WASHINGTON, June 3 – The U.S. House of Representatives approved a Democratic resolution Wednesday requiring congressional authorization before military action against Iran can proceed, demonstrating increasing legislative unease about the conflict even within President Donald Trump’s own party.

The measure passed by a margin of 215 to 208, with four Republicans crossing party lines to support the Democratic-sponsored war powers resolution. The vote represents another legislative challenge for Trump despite his party holding narrow control in both congressional chambers.

The action carries primarily symbolic weight. For the resolution to take effect, it must also clear the Senate and secure two-thirds support in both houses to override what would likely be a certain presidential veto.

Nevertheless, the vote follows three earlier war powers measures that failed in the House by progressively smaller vote counts. Additionally, the Senate moved forward with a comparable resolution in a procedural vote last month, following seven unsuccessful previous attempts.

The current administration has chosen to grow a federal initiative that was created during the previous presidency, specifically focusing on dismantling human trafficking operations.

This enforcement program, which targets criminal networks involved in smuggling people, represents one area where the new administration has decided to build upon rather than reverse policies established under Biden.

A 50-year-old technology support worker named Michael Stansfield launched a Republican congressional campaign in the Sacramento suburbs of California to send a message to his party’s religious supporters.

His goal was to highlight the importance of Middle Eastern peace and demonstrate how Islam aligns with Christian values.

The former seminary student and father of two borrowed against his house to cover the $17,000 required to file his candidacy paperwork. He collected no additional contributions, ran no visible campaign operation, and worked without any staff.

However, following California’s primary election on Tuesday, Stansfield managed to secure enough voter support to maintain second place, which could prevent Democrats from advancing to November’s general election in a House contest central to their nationwide redistricting efforts.

“I wanted to show Christianity and Judaism a God from the Bible who loves Muslims,” Stansfield said in a telephone interview before rushing to his son’s sixth-grade graduation. “I wasn’t necessarily going after it to win a race.”

While it remains unclear which two candidates will move forward in the 6th Congressional District, the preliminary outcomes already demonstrate the risks Democrats face when making assumptions about gerrymandering strategies designed to increase their influence. California Democrats secured voter approval last year to redesign the state’s congressional boundaries as a response to Republican redistricting efforts ahead of this year’s midterm contests. The party anticipated gaining five seats statewide, including the 6th District, which extends from Sacramento eastward into Republican-favoring suburban areas.

Democrats expected one of the top two vote-getters would represent their party. However, Stansfield’s performance shows how carefully crafted partisan redistricting schemes can fail when confronted with unpredictable campaign dynamics.

Kevin Kiley represents the congressman whose conservative district was divided and combined with a more Democratic region. Kiley departed the Republican Party to run as an independent candidate and has captured the highest vote share thus far. This positioned Stansfield as the sole candidate displaying an “R” beside his name, helping him currently rank above nine Democratic candidates who divided the majority of votes counted so far.

Strategic advisors from both parties anticipate that heavily Democratic-leaning mail ballots numbering in the tens of thousands and still uncounted will favor Democratic candidates, likely allowing one to overtake Stansfield in final results.

“I would think there’d be an advantage to Democrats,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP consultant in Sacramento.

State regulations permit mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to count if received within seven days. Officials must also reach out to mail voters whose signatures don’t match records and provide alternative identity verification opportunities. Tight races in the state frequently require weeks to determine.

Stansfield, who reports being married to a Muslim woman from the Middle East and was expelled from seminary for arguing Palestinians possess biblical rights to the Holy Land, previously mounted an unsuccessful congressional bid. In 2018, he pursued an Oregon House seat as a Democrat, joining that party following the Iraq War.

He suffered a decisive primary defeat, earning approximately 4% of votes in a district encompassing part of Portland, though a candidate questionnaire from that period revealed additional details about his positions. When asked about his top priorities if elected, Stansfield stated he opposed “ignorance in all its forms.”

“If we are ever going to call ourselves a tolerant society we need to learn to embrace the diversity of our world with love,” he wrote.

In the questionnaire, he identified himself as Jewish and cited supplying water and medical equipment in Gaza among his most passionate policy interests.

Stansfield explained he abandoned the Democratic Party after the Israel-Hamas conflict began during Democrat Joe Biden’s presidency, citing what he termed “genocide” in Gaza. Following his California relocation, he chose to seek office in the congressional district before last year’s boundary changes, when it reliably supported conservatives, hoping to reach the maximum number of Republican voters with his message.

“I wanted to go to the Republican Party and say ‘Guys, I love you, but you’ve messed up,’” Stansfield said.

He never anticipated finding himself in such a potentially decisive position.

Democrats worried about losing access to one of five seats they expected to capture through redistricting, but their concerns focused on a San Diego-area district featuring a similarly crowded candidate field. San Diego City Councilwoman Marni von Wilpert surged forward to claim a general election spot and will compete against Republican San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond in November.

In another redesigned congressional district, Republican Rep. Ken Calvert earned a November ballot position following an intense campaign against fellow Republican Rep. Young Kim. The second position in that contest remained undecided Wednesday.

Three experienced Democratic House members facing challenges from younger party rivals appeared to have prevented upsets.

Reps. Brad Sherman and Mike Thompson became top vote recipients in their respective contests and will advance to the general election. Rep. Doris Matsui led vote counting Wednesday in her Sacramento district, though uncertainty remained about which two candidates would proceed to the general election.

ATLANTA (AP) — A Georgia prosecutor has filed a constitutional challenge against legislation mandating nonpartisan elections for most local positions in the five largest counties surrounding Atlanta while exempting the remainder of the state from this requirement.

DeKalb County District Attorney Sherry Boston — joined by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Clayton County District Attorney Tasha Mosley and Cobb County District Attorney Sonya Allen — declared Wednesday from a park located across from the state Capitol that she was submitting a legal challenge to the legislation. Boston, who serves as the sole plaintiff in the case, claimed the legislation breaches both state and federal constitutional protections and singles out Democratic strongholds while pretending to eliminate politics from these elections.

“Republicans here at the state Capitol want to make it harder for voters in our counties to choose the people who best represent us and our values,” Boston said. “But today we are here at the state Capitol to tell those lawmakers that we will not shy away from speaking up for the people of Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Gwinnett and Fulton counties.”

She rejected claims that the legislation aims to enhance public safety or eliminate political considerations from the process.

“I think the intent of the law when you look at who they’ve targeted is very clear,” Boston said. “They have chosen to go after Democratic strongholds where Democratic DAs and Democratic officials have been successful in these races.”

The legal action targets the state of Georgia. Through an emailed response, Kara Murray, a spokesperson for state Attorney General Chris Carr, stated, “We will defend the law as enacted and signed by the Governor.”

Willis and Boston had earlier warned of potential litigation regarding the law after Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp approved it last month. They indicated that one motivation for Republicans focusing on these five counties was that all currently have Black women serving as their elected district attorneys.

Willis has faced repeated criticism from Republican state legislators following her prosecution of President Donald Trump and associates regarding efforts to reverse Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia’s 2020 presidential contest. That legal proceeding was thrown out last year.

State Sen. John Albers, a Republican from the Atlanta suburb of Roswell who championed the legislation, stated during the legislative session that he expected it would enhance public safety, although the counties’ elected sheriffs will remain under partisan election systems. Albers did not respond immediately Wednesday to a message sent through his legislative office seeking comment regarding Boston’s lawsuit.

The legislation, scheduled to begin in 2028, would mandate nonpartisan elections for district attorneys, solicitors general, county commissioners, court clerks and tax commissioners.

It will shift elections for all impacted positions except district attorneys to May, when voters select nonpartisan judges. This creates a smaller voting pool than in November, with participation primarily influenced by partisan office primaries conducted simultaneously. Should no candidate secure a majority, nonpartisan runoffs would occur in June.

The policy affects Fulton County, which encompasses most of Atlanta, along with the suburban areas of Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb and Gwinnett counties. Fulton, DeKalb and Clayton counties represent the three most significant Democratic jurisdictions statewide. Cobb and Gwinnett, previously reliable Georgia Republican territories, have shown increasing Democratic support since 2016.

Boston argued the law breaches Georgia’s uniformity clause, which she stated demands laws function identically statewide. It also violates equal protection provisions in both state and federal constitutions because legislators provided no legitimate justification for treating these five counties and their voters and elected officials differently, she stated. Additionally, she claimed lawmakers violated procedural requirements during the voting process.

Chicago’s leading federal prosecutor has acknowledged making a direct appeal to grand jurors before they issued indictments against demonstrators who protested immigration enforcement actions during the previous administration. The unusual admission sheds light on his involvement in typically confidential proceedings that weren’t progressing as federal officials had hoped.

U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros issued a five-page statement on Tuesday, including portions of transcripts, responding to defense attorneys’ allegations that he had improper “personal contact” with the grand jury last October before charges were filed on a third attempt.

Boutros maintained that his appearance was simply to emphasize jurors’ duty to remain impartial and denied attempting to influence their decision-making.

However, Boutros also instructed jurors to “please raise your hand” if they “cannot set aside their personal feelings” regarding immigration or other matters. This occurred during a period when the Justice Department under President Donald Trump was experiencing difficulties with grand juries in other locations.

“It’s not normal,” Sol Wisenberg, a former federal prosecutor, said Wednesday. “Typically it’s a judge who might make remarks.”

The federal case against the demonstrators has since crumbled for additional reasons. Boutros dismissed charges against four activists on May 21 because of alleged improper conduct by an assistant U.S. attorney during grand jury proceedings. There were also allegations that jurors who opposed issuing an indictment were excluded from participation.

When the case was thrown out, Boutros told a judge: “No one acted with the intent to mislead, your honor.”

A federal grand jury consists of 16 to 23 individuals who convene privately. A prosecutor presents evidence without defense attorney involvement. The grand jury doesn’t require unanimous agreement, though 12 votes are needed for an indictment. All jurors, prosecutors and investigators are bound by confidentiality.

It’s unusual for a U.S. attorney in a large city to personally appear before a grand jury. Boutros stated he didn’t discuss legal applications or evidence regarding the protesters at a Chicago-area immigration detention facility.

Instead, he indicated his purpose was merely to provide encouragement while his team managed the case specifics. Boutros argued that a grand jury unwilling to consider “evidence impartially without fear or favor” undermines law enforcement.

“In such unchartered and unprecedented circumstances, extraordinary measures may be required to restore the rule of law,” he said regarding his appearance.

Defense attorney Josh Herman, representing defendants in the case, expressed concern about Boutros’ actions. He called it “chilling” that Boutros asked jurors to identify themselves if they couldn’t set aside personal feelings when reviewing evidence in certain cases before the grand jury issued an indictment on the third try.

“The fact that the indictment has now been dismissed due to other misconduct before the grand jury does not cure the many wrongs that happened here,” said Herman, who along with other lawyers is requesting a judge order the government to cover their legal fees.

The Chicago situation reflects a broader pattern of Justice Department challenges with grand juries during the second Trump administration.

Judges in Wyoming recently threw out charges against nine individuals after the U.S. attorney there called the defendants “bad guys” and “murderers” to jurors. He distributed business cards and encouraged individual contact.

In November, a federal magistrate judge criticized a Trump supporter who obtained an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, stating Lindsey Halligan had shown a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps.”

These irregularities have been referenced by attorneys seeking grand jury transcripts in the case involving independent journalist Don Lemon. He faces charges related to an immigration enforcement protest at a Minnesota church.

Boutros was named U.S. attorney in 2025 for northern Illinois by the Justice Department, with his term extended last year by U.S. District Court judges. U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Illinois Democrats, have demanded his resignation, citing turmoil and “deep internal dysfunction” within his office.

The nation’s highest court has given Alabama the green light to proceed with a congressional district map that benefits Republican candidates in the upcoming midterm elections.

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that Alabama voters will cast ballots in six districts that favor GOP candidates and just one district that leans toward Democratic candidates during the midterms.

WASHINGTON — During a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declined to clarify whether President Donald Trump and his relatives will continue receiving protection from IRS audits following the administration’s decision to cancel a controversial $1.776 billion compensation fund that would have aided the president’s supporters.

“There’s continuing litigation, and I’m unable to comment on ongoing litigation,” Bessent responded to lawmakers during the committee session.

The evasive response frustrated Democratic senators seeking clarity from Bessent during a hearing supposedly centered on the Treasury Department’s budget. This came one day after acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared to suggest that the settlement’s IRS audit protection provisions would remain active for the Republican president.

Following multiple unsuccessful efforts to obtain a direct answer from Bessent, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., declared, “It’s been very clear you’re dodging this and you’re trying to use it as an excuse. It’s just outrageous on behalf of the American republic.”

A White House representative failed to respond to an Associated Press request regarding the settlement’s current status. The president has not made any public statements about the compensation fund’s elimination.

The administration chose to eliminate the compensation fund plans, which might have included payments to those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, following widespread bipartisan criticism and intense political opposition that threatened to derail important White House priorities. However, the IRS immunity agreement’s status within the disputed settlement designed to resolve the president’s $10 billion IRS lawsuit remained uncertain, despite Blanche’s Tuesday statement that “nothing has changed” regarding that matter.

A federal judge in Florida supervising the president’s IRS lawsuit, who had previously thrown out the case, reopened it last week and directed the president’s legal team to address accusations that the president dropped his claims to prevent court examination of the agreement.

When initially dismissing the case, Kathleen Williams, the judge overseeing the lawsuit, criticized the Justice Department for insufficient transparency and stated no agency “submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that the settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed.”

Matt Platkin, a former New Jersey attorney general currently with the law firm Platkin LLP, which represents lawmakers and judges contesting the settlement agreement, described it as “one of the greatest scams in American history.”

He informed The Associated Press that Blanche’s Tuesday testimony regarding plans to eliminate the weaponization fund while granting the president audit immunity “underscores the need for the court to continue its inquiry in Florida.”

Senate members attempted unsuccessfully to question Bessent about the agreement on Wednesday.

“Secretary Bessent owes the committee an explanation of what the Treasury knows about the dirty settlement. That’s because his department was involved from beginning to end,” stated Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

Wyden questioned Bessent: “Does the IRS audit immunity given to Trump, his family, and his businesses still stand?”

Bessent refused to provide an answer, referencing the ongoing legal matter.

Should audits and investigations into the president’s tax records be dismissed under the settlement, an unknown amount could be eliminated from his obligations to the federal tax agency.

Earlier reporting by the New York Times and ProPublica revealed that a continuing audit of a method the president allegedly employed to evade taxes in previous years might have led to an estimated $100 million assessment if the IRS had discovered violations.

Some Republicans also voiced concerns Wednesday about the proposal to protect the president from IRS oversight.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., told reporters outside the chambers, “I don’t think any American should have a deal like that.”

Nina Olson, founder of the Center for Taxpayer Rights, which has filed suit against the administration over IRS disclosures to immigration authorities, characterized the settlement as “the lowest point for the IRS since the 1970s and President Nixon’s efforts to help his friends by trying to stop IRS audits of them and hurting his enemies by urging IRS audits on them.”

An online prediction platform has terminated its business relationship with former congressman George Santos while federal authorities examine whether he engaged in illegal trading practices on a competing betting site.

According to sources familiar with the investigation, Santos wagered against his own presence at President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on February 24th through the prediction marketplace Kalshi. This occurred after he had publicly declared his plans to attend the speech. Santos later cited flight delays as the reason for his absence.

Kalshi discovered the questionable betting activity and forwarded the information to the Commodities Future Trading Commission, which has launched an investigation into Santos for potential insider trading violations, according to a second source with knowledge of the probe.

Both individuals spoke with The Associated Press under anonymity because they lacked authorization to discuss the ongoing matter.

At the time of the State of the Union event, Santos was already serving as a paid influencer for Polymarket, leveraging his significant social media presence to promote the company. He had been released from federal prison in October following a clemency grant from Trump in connection with fraud charges.

When contacted by the AP for comment, a Polymarket representative confirmed the company was proceeding with contract termination following this week’s disclosures.

Santos did not return phone calls or text messages from the AP seeking comment.

During episodes of his podcast “Doing Time with George Santos,” the former congressman has discussed his participation in prediction markets, describing them as “easily manipulable.”

“There’s definitely some space for speculation. There will be investigations. There will be scrutiny,” he stated in March. “I just want to make sure that people understand: It is not straightforward. It is not a crime to do prediction market.”

He added: “I think it’s fun and you can make a little money and you can have fun with it, but just understand that there will always be advantaged players in this game and it’s very hard to understand who they are.”

Santos secured his congressional seat in 2022 by campaigning with a fabricated identity as a successful Wall Street businessman, despite having no financial industry experience and facing personal financial difficulties including rent payment struggles.

He faced expulsion from Congress and entered guilty pleas to wire fraud and identity theft charges in a criminal case involving the theft of donor funds, which he used for personal purchases including luxury apparel.

After receiving a sentence exceeding seven years in prison, Santos completed 84 days of incarceration before Trump commuted his sentence.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans are preparing to vote Wednesday on legislation providing funding for immigration enforcement agencies following the White House’s decision to abandon a controversial settlement fund for political allies and remove proposed White House security funding from the measure.

The approximately $70 billion legislation would provide resources for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. The bill faced weeks of delays as Republican senators worked through various hurdles to passage that arose from President Donald Trump and the White House. GOP leaders now say they’re prepared to advance the legislation in its streamlined form.

“Right now, the goal is to get the base bill across the finish line,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.

However, Republicans must secure sufficient votes to defeat numerous amendments that Democrats — and possibly some Republicans — plan to introduce. The GOP is utilizing budget reconciliation procedures that allow passage without Democratic support, though they must first navigate an extensive series of amendment votes that could create challenges for the bill.

The main concern during amendment voting, which could start Wednesday evening, involves anticipated Democratic proposals regarding Trump’s $1.776 billion settlement fund. The administration eliminated this fund Tuesday following strong Republican opposition. Despite acting Attorney General Todd Blanche informing Congress that “we are not moving forward with the fund, period,” Democrats want the prohibition codified in law.

“It is only a matter of time before Blanche and Trump go back on their word,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Thune characterized Blanche’s statements as “extremely helpful” and believes most GOP senators were pleased with the decision. “We’ll find out,” he said.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has indicated he may propose an amendment preventing any attempt to revive the fund, which was included in a settlement resolving Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS regarding his leaked tax returns.

Thune said he’s collaborating with Tillis and other senators who have discussed amendments while working to secure enough votes for a simple majority in the 53-47 Senate.

“Keep in mind, we’ve got to keep them all together, make sure we’ve got 50 votes for it,” Thune said.

The bill also faced delays due to opposition to $1 billion in White House security funding, including resources for Trump’s new ballroom, that was added to the original legislation.

Both Democrats and some Republicans questioned spending taxpayer funds on the large-scale project during a period of economic difficulty for many Americans. Democrats had planned amendments to remove that language as well.

While various side issues temporarily stalled the legislation, Republicans have emphasized their primary focus remains passing the ICE and Border Patrol funding that Democrats have blocked for months in opposition to the administration’s immigration enforcement policies. Success requires Republican unity in both the Senate and House before reaching Trump’s desk.

The GOP has emerged victorious from an intense partisan redistricting fight across the nation. Whether this translates into maintaining congressional control will ultimately depend on November’s voters.

The redrawn electoral maps could deliver Republicans approximately 10 extra U.S. House seats if they perform as designed in the upcoming elections. The key question remains whether this advantage will be sufficient for the GOP to maintain their chamber majority, given that Democrats require only a handful of seat gains to seize control.

Historical trends and current political dynamics work in Democrats’ favor. President Donald Trump’s approval numbers remain in negative territory. Additionally, the party holding the presidency has consistently lost House seats during midterm elections for the past twenty years.

This electoral cycle has already proven extraordinary. Typically, voting boundaries are redrawn exclusively following each decade’s census. However, Trump pushed Republicans last summer to redraw congressional maps to their benefit in an effort to minimize losses during the 2026 midterms.

Following that push, Republicans believe they could capture up to 16 extra seats through new House maps implemented across eight states — Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana and Alabama. Democrats, whose response efforts encountered multiple obstacles, estimate they could gain up to six additional seats through new boundaries in California and Utah.

Approximately 145 million Americans — roughly two out of every five U.S. citizens — reside in states implementing new congressional districts for this election.

However, the mid-decade redistricting effort didn’t reach its full potential.

Kansas Republicans and Illinois Democrats both rejected party pressure to pursue redistricting. In Republican-controlled Indiana and South Carolina, plus Democratic-led Maryland, new congressional maps passed state House chambers but ultimately failed in state Senates. Virginia’s Supreme Court struck down new voter-approved districts that might have helped Democrats secure up to four extra seats. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that could have assisted Democrats in gaining a congressional seat in New York.

Below is an examination of states implementing new U.S. House maps:

Current map: 13 Democrats, 25 Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a revised House map into law last August that could help Republicans win five additional seats. Democrats think they could still win some of those seats.

Current map: two Democrats, six Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe signed a revised House map into law last September that could help Republicans win an additional seat by reshaping a Democratic-held district based in Kansas City. Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins has until Aug. 4 — the date of Missouri’s primaries — to decide whether to reject an initiative petition seeking a statewide vote on the map.

Current map: four Democrats, 10 Republicans

New map: The Republican-led General Assembly gave final approval in October to revised districts that could help Republicans win an additional seat.

Current map: five Democrats, 10 Republicans

New map: A bipartisan panel composed primarily of Republicans voted in October to approve revised House districts that improve Republicans’ chances of winning two additional seats. Democrats think they could still win those seats.

Current map: 43 Democrats, nine Republicans

New map: Voters in November approved revised House districts drawn by the Democratic-led Legislature that could help Democrats win five additional seats.

Current map: no Democrats, four Republicans

New map: A judge in November imposed revised House districts that could help Democrats win a seat in the Salt Lake City area.

Current map: eight Democrats, 20 Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed revised House districts in May that improve the GOP’s chances of winning four additional seats. Legal challenges are pending.

Current map: one Democrat, eight Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed new House districts in May that improve the GOP’s chances of winning an additional seat by carving up the lone Democratic-held seat, a majority-Black district based in Memphis. Legal challenges are pending.

Current map: two Democrats, four Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed off on new House districts in May that improve Republican chances of winning an additional seat by eliminating a majority-Black district held by a Democrat that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as an illegal racial gerrymander.

Current map: two Democrats, five Republicans

New map: The U.S. Supreme Court in June allowed the state to use a congressional map approved by Republican state lawmakers that improves the GOP’s chances of winning an additional seat by reshaping a Democratic-held district that has a large number of Black voters.

MILWAUKEE (AP) — A federal judge delayed sentencing Wednesday to consider overturning the conviction of former Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, who was found guilty of felony obstruction for assisting an immigrant in avoiding federal authorities.

The proceedings represented an early judicial test of how courts would handle President Donald Trump’s extensive immigration enforcement efforts.

While Dugan was originally set to receive her sentence Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman delayed the hearing without setting a new date to instead review arguments about potentially reversing her conviction.

Adelman made no immediate ruling and gave no timeline for a decision. Dugan and lawyers from both sides exited the courtroom without speaking to the media.

Defense attorney Steven Biskupic contended that Dugan’s conviction should be reversed and declared invalid. He cited a federal appeals court decision from April that overturned a crucial Virginia immigration case that both the judge and prosecutors had referenced in Dugan’s proceedings.

Based on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversing that decision, Biskupic maintained that Dugan was wrongfully convicted under procedural aspects of federal law.

“Our primary argument is this was an invalid theory of conviction,” Biskupic stated.

The Virginia case involved an immigrant who was in the country without authorization and was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents before escaping. After being captured again, he faced charges for obstructing a pending immigration proceeding.

The federal appeals court determined that the ICE action did not qualify as a “pending proceeding,” which federal obstruction law requires.

Dugan’s legal team maintains she should never have faced charges because no “pending proceeding” existed against the immigrant in her courtroom that ICE agents were pursuing, only an arrest warrant. Filing a warrant doesn’t constitute a “proceeding” under the law, Biskupic contended.

Government prosecutors argued that the Virginia case facts differ and don’t relate to Dugan’s situation. They also pointed to other cases that support upholding Dugan’s conviction.

“The court should stick with its ruling,” stated Richard Frohling, acting U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Wisconsin.

When questioned by the judge, he maintained that the appeals court erred in overturning the Virginia case. The judge also questioned Frohling about what legally constitutes a proceeding and its duration.

“It could be a couple minutes, it could be a couple years,” Frohling responded. “It all depends on the context.”

Dugan, 67, could face up to five years in prison following her December 19 jury conviction. However, prison time appears unlikely for Dugan. Federal sentencing guidelines typically recommend probation for defendants without criminal records convicted of nonviolent offenses.

She stepped down from her Milwaukee County circuit judge position two weeks after her conviction as Republican state lawmakers threatened impeachment. She had served as a judge for nine years.

Dugan attended Wednesday’s hearing but remained silent throughout.

The Trump administration pursued charges against Dugan as the president advanced his comprehensive immigration enforcement agenda. Trump’s administration and supporters characterized Dugan as an activist judge, while her attorneys claimed she was being unfairly prosecuted and unsuccessfully argued she had judicial immunity from charges.

Dugan’s case became the first instance of a Wisconsin state judge facing trial for obstructing immigration agents. She was cleared of a misdemeanor charge for concealing an individual to prevent arrest.

On April 18, 2025, immigration officers arrived at the Milwaukee County courthouse after discovering Eduardo Flores-Ruiz had illegally reentered the country and was scheduled to appear before Dugan for a state battery case hearing.

Dugan approached agents outside her courtroom and sent them to the chief judge’s office, telling them their administrative warrant was insufficient for arresting Flores-Ruiz.

Following the agents’ departure, she escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a private jury exit. Agents noticed Flores-Ruiz in the hallway, pursued him outside and arrested him after a foot pursuit. FBI agents arrested Dugan at the courthouse a week later, escorting her out in handcuffs.

Flores-Ruiz was deported in November.

Former President Donald Trump has verified that he used harsh language to describe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a recent phone conversation, specifically calling the Israeli leader “crazy” amid discussions about military operations in Lebanon.

During a Wednesday interview on the “Pod Force One” podcast, Trump was questioned about whether he had used profanity when speaking to Netanyahu and criticized him for being ungrateful, referencing an earlier Axios news report.

“I did,” Trump confirmed. “I wouldn’t say angry. I was a little bit perturbed at his constantly fighting with Lebanon, you know.”

Despite the heated exchange, Trump emphasized that his relationship with Netanyahu remains positive.

The Axios report, which referenced an unnamed U.S. official, detailed Trump’s Monday phone call with Netanyahu where he allegedly said: “You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”

Trump elaborated on the conversation during his interview: “At some point, I said, Bibi, we got to stop this. We got to stop it.”

When asked about the reported conversation, Netanyahu chose not to discuss specifics but maintained that his relationship with Trump remains unchanged.

“We have common goals. Sometimes we have, as in the best of families, you have these tactical disagreements,” Netanyahu stated during a Wednesday CNBC interview.

“He’s been the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House, and he respects me; I respect him. We always find a way to work out our differences.”

Iran has indicated it will not accept any agreement with the United States to conclude the conflict that Trump and Netanyahu initiated in late February without including a ceasefire for Lebanon, which Israel entered in March while pursuing the Iran-supported Hezbollah militia that launched attacks across the border in support of Tehran.

Fighting has persisted despite a U.S.-brokered agreement announced Monday that resulted in Israel reducing attacks on Hezbollah-controlled areas in southern Beirut, while the Iran-backed organization ceased cross-border attacks.

Israeli drone attacks resulted in at least six deaths in southern Lebanon and targeted a vehicle south of Beirut on Wednesday, according to Lebanese security sources. Israel reported intercepting a hostile aircraft believed to be launched by Hezbollah.

Trump reacted defensively when questioned whether Netanyahu had “tricked” him into attacking Iran, calling his critics “the enemy.”

“I mean, I’m the one that started it,” Trump responded. “I started because we can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.”

“Now that pertains to Israel, because they probably would have been the first one to get hit. There would be no Israel. Tell you what, if there wasn’t me, there would be no Israel right now.”

Trump argued that Israel’s situation would be significantly worse if he had not withdrawn from a 2015 agreement negotiated by President Barack Obama and other world leaders with Iran, where Tehran committed to limiting its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

Following Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from that agreement during his first presidency, Iran accumulated stockpiles of near-weapons-grade highly enriched uranium, which Trump now insists it must surrender. Trump’s opponents argue that Iran is now closer to developing nuclear weapons, making it more difficult for Trump to secure a better agreement.

Trump has previously used profanity regarding Israel, including publicly stating last year that Israel and Iran “don’t know what the fuck they are doing.”

WASHINGTON — For decades, federal agencies have enforced civil rights legislation with a focus on correcting historical and systemic discrimination against Black Americans and other minority groups. The Justice Department pushed educational institutions toward integration. The Education Department championed equal access and held schools responsible for racial prejudice.

However, under the current Republican administration, initiatives designed to tackle deep-seated inequalities for minority students are being characterized as discriminatory toward white students. Long-standing programs that previously survived legal challenges are now rapidly labeled as “illegal DEI” — diversity, equity and inclusion — by the White House. Educational institutions that refuse to comply have faced funding threats, with some losing federal grants entirely.

Civil rights attorneys characterize the Republican administration’s approach as a complete reversal of legal precedent.

“It’s literally flipping the purpose of civil rights law on its head, not just harming Black students and students of color, but entire school communities,” said Michael Pillera, director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “It’s unmoored from the actual history of our country and untethered to the reality of life in this country.”

The administration has launched investigations or joined lawsuits targeting various initiatives aimed at addressing racial disparities. The Justice Department is examining programs designed to boost the number of minority educators in Rhode Island and Iowa. Funding for districts to prepare teachers or recruit school mental health professionals has been terminated due to diversity language in recruitment materials.

In a statement, the Education Department said programs receiving federal money must follow the law, which prohibits discrimination based on race.

“Serving student needs and following the law are not irreconcilable mandates. Advocates and educators have no reason to stress if they abide by the law,” said Amelia Joy, a department spokesperson.

The administration investigated Chicago Public Schools and withheld more than $20 million when the district refused to end its Black Student Success Program, which aims to increase access to advanced coursework for Black students and reduce overly harsh discipline.

A similar effort to close racial achievement gaps in Los Angeles is under the same pressure.

The Los Angeles Unified School District created the Black Student Achievement Plan after an outpouring of student activism following the 2020 murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. It supports schools with extra teachers, counselors and curriculum in Black history.

Initially, the district chose schools partially based on the number of Black students enrolled. In 2023, Defending Education, a Virginia-based conservative group, filed a complaint to the Education Department, alleging discrimination against non-Black students. The district said it would no longer consider Black enrollment and instead focus solely on metrics such as high absenteeism and low test scores, emphasizing that all students could take part.

After the changes, the Education Department in 2024 said it saw no evidence of a violation. But when Defending Education filed its complaint again this year, the department’s Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation.

Sarah Parshall Perry, senior legal fellow at Defending Education, said it refiled the complaint after district leaders were recorded saying the program had not materially changed, despite the new criteria.

“Our goal is not to make LA Unified a target, but rather to make sure that when people say that they are eliminating racially discriminatory aspects of programs, that they’re actually making good on their word,” Perry said.

In a written statement, the school district said its programs are aligned with state and federal laws and are open to all students.

Makeda Walker-Deen, a junior at Dorsey High School in Los Angeles, said the program has supported her in several ways through high school.

A program counselor directed her toward college preparation programs, which made it possible for her to visit the University of California, Berkeley, and Stanford, colleges where she is thinking of applying. Psychologists and social workers she connected with have helped her navigate pressure and anxiety.

“I think that the things a lot of critics are saying are so unreasonable,” she said. “They’re saying that a program that’s meant to help Black students, other students of color, is discriminatory. We’ve been discriminated against in school systems basically our entire lives.”

The district has seen signs of impact. In recent state testing, Black students in the district outperformed the average Black student in California.

“When you provide teachers and school personnel with knowledge and skills to help your lowest performing students, everyone wins,” said Tyrone Howard, an education professor at UCLA who consulted on the initiative.

Organizers worry pressures on the program will slow efforts to address inequities for Black students.

“Where is the uproar about the failings of the public education system for Black children?” said Christian Flagg, director of youth organizing at Community Coalition, which lobbied for the creation of the achievement plan. “We have had this student group at the bottom for so long, these massive gaps for so long. But when we do something to try to address it, there’s a problem.”

The change in the federal government’s approach to civil rights in schools has taken several forms under the current administration.

The Justice Department has released school districts from court-ordered desegregation plans dating to the Civil Rights Movement, describing them as outdated and burdensome. The Education Department has stripped funding from some districts that used it to create magnet schools intended to be more diverse.

In correspondence discouraging districts’ diversity programs, the administration has repeatedly cited a broad interpretation of the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action, which prevented colleges and universities from directly considering race in admissions.

While that ruling pertained only to admissions, the administration last winter notified schools that any differential treatment based on race was unconstitutional. A federal court struck down that guidance last year, but advocates say schools may still preemptively end equity programs to avoid drawing federal scrutiny.

In Los Angeles, the Justice Department has tried to end another racial equity effort.

In the 1970s, courts ordered the district to address the harms of its segregated schools. The case led to a short-lived period where Black students and white students were bused to different schools. The more lasting programs included the district’s magnet schools, and a special designation for “Predominantly Hispanic, Black, Asian or Other Non-Anglo” schools.

That program offers smaller class sizes and additional parent-teacher conferences when 70% of the students zoned for that school are students of color. The vast majority of district schools qualify.

In January, the conservative 1776 Project Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the designation, describing it as “a program of overt discrimination against a new minority: White students.” The next month, the Justice Department filed its own complaint and asked to join the lawsuit.

The district’s “desegregation program has outlived its usefulness to the point of being unconstitutional,” a federal prosecutor said in a news release.

Decades of inequity show that is not true, said lawyer Mark Rosenbaum, who years ago represented students of color in L.A.’s desegregation case.

“The opponents of desegregation always said, ‘Drop desegregation, and we will put resources into these schools,’” Rosenbaum said. “You know, we are still waiting for that to happen.”

A Senate committee will convene next Wednesday to review the nomination of Brett Matsumoto for commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, according to congressional schedules.

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions will examine Matsumoto’s qualifications for the federal post. The White House selected Matsumoto to fill the position after President Donald Trump removed Erika McEntarfer from the role in August.

The president had alleged that McEntarfer altered employment data from July without providing supporting evidence. That monthly jobs report revealed slower-than-anticipated job creation and significant downward adjustments to employment figures from the previous two months.

Before settling on Matsumoto, Trump had originally chosen conservative economist E.J. Antoni, who had been critical of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, that nomination was pulled back when it faced resistance from Republican lawmakers. Economic analysts in the private sector had raised concerns about the reliability of bureau statistics after McEntarfer’s dismissal.

Matsumoto earned his doctorate in economics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and specializes in inflation analysis. He began working at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2015 and is currently taking time away from that position to serve with the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — In a surprising turn of events Tuesday night, businessman Zach Lahn defeated President Donald Trump’s endorsed candidate, Rep. Randy Feenstra, in Iowa’s Republican primary for governor, marking an uncommon primary loss for Trump after a series of recent electoral successes.

The close victory exposed divisions within Trump’s support base in the traditionally conservative state, giving hope to Democrats who believe they can capture the governor’s mansion this fall. The outcome also represents a significant moment for the Make America Healthy Again movement, which has criticized the Trump administration’s support of pesticides and rallied behind Lahn’s advocacy for sustainable farming practices and opposition to large agribusiness companies.

“I will take on the big ag cartels. I will break up their monopolies, and I will get Iowa farmers a fair deal,” Lahn declared during his victory address Tuesday evening.

Supporters of the MAHA movement, a varied group backing Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with goals spanning from ending vaccine requirements to promoting soil health and organic agriculture, celebrated the victory as evidence their political agenda was connecting with voters.

“This election is a signal that pro-pesticide does not mean pro-farmer,” stated Tony Lyons, the president of the Kennedy-aligned MAHA PAC, which endorsed Lahn. “Zach Lahn made transitioning away from toxic chemicals the cornerstone of his campaign and won this election decisively with strong farmer support.”

Until launching his gubernatorial bid in November, Lahn, a farmer and former conservative political director, remained largely unknown across Iowa. Throughout his campaign, he promoted positions that resonated with the state’s conservative base, including complete abortion restrictions and removing liberal concepts from educational curricula.

The candidate, who operates an investment firm and resides on a century-old family farm in eastern Iowa, took advantage of activist concerns about Feenstra, attacking him for avoiding primary debates and maintaining minimal campaign presence.

Additionally, he established himself within the MAHA movement, strongly criticizing corporate farmland consolidation and recognizing health issues related to agricultural practices and water contamination.

The agricultural powerhouse state maintains an influential farm lobby that has resisted mandatory chemical reduction regulations in waterways. However, severely contaminated drinking water has emerged as a pressing concern as agricultural runoff has driven nitrate levels higher, necessitating costly filtration systems in Des Moines, the state capital.

During a May debate, Lahn characterized water treatment facility improvements as a “Band-Aid.” He stated his gubernatorial objective would be to “decrease the nitrate load in the water in the future so we have less stress on that system.”

Over recent months, MAHA movement supporters strongly endorsed Lahn as their frustration mounted with the Trump administration and its Environmental Protection Agency for policies they consider contrary to improving America’s health.

This year, they protested after Trump signed an executive order designed to increase production of glyphosate, a disputed herbicide component. They also staged a demonstration at the Supreme Court in April opposing glyphosate manufacturer Monsanto’s Trump-supported attempt to avoid legal liability.

Lahn has rejected liability protections for pesticide manufacturers. He emphasized campaign themes related to these concerns during his primary victory remarks Tuesday night.

“Iowa has the fastest growing cancer rate in the world,” Lahn stated. “We all know something is terribly wrong. But too many politicians from Washington, D.C., to Des Moines have had their heads stuck in the sand while big ag and big pharma printed money. This will not go on when I’m governor.”

MAHA movement leaders responded to Lahn’s win by claiming it as their achievement.

“MAHA has done its job proving it’s politically radioactive to stand with chemicals over children,” Turning Point USA podcaster Alex Clark posted on social media. “Iowa knows pesticides are causing cancer which is exploding in their state. Tonight they opted for change.”

The president remained silent about Iowa’s gubernatorial contest until the previous week, when he endorsed Feenstra as “MAGA all the way” and promised he would “fight tirelessly” for the state on matters including economic issues, border protection and law enforcement support.

Earlier primary victories had demonstrated the president’s endorsement influence, helping to overcome two senators — John Cornyn of Texas and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana — along with Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

However, Feenstra’s defeat represents a blow to the president and provides an opportunity Democrats will likely attempt to exploit.

State Auditor Rob Sand, the only Democrat currently in statewide office, secured the party’s gubernatorial nomination. Running uncontested in the primary, Sand has refined his centrist message, highlighted his rural background and accumulated an $18 million campaign treasury.

Following his Tuesday loss, Feenstra conceded to Lahn and expressed willingness to unite for party benefit. He revealed calling Lahn to encourage him to “carry the torch.” In his victory speech, Lahn previewed his November campaign against Sand using conventional conservative rhetoric.

“Rob Sand wants you to believe he’s a moderate,” he declared. “We’ve seen this movie before.”