Category: Politics

California’s chaotic and high-stakes gubernatorial election reaches a critical moment this Tuesday as voters prepare to select their next governor.

The state seeks a successor to Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, with the outcome poised to shape the direction of a state government known for pioneering progressive policies while facing criticism from Republican President Donald Trump. As America’s most populated state with one of the globe’s biggest economies, California houses entertainment industry leaders, tech innovators, and agricultural producers.

The campaign took an unexpected turn this April when Representative Eric Swalwell, who had been gaining momentum among Democratic establishment figures, faced sexual assault allegations and withdrew from the race.

Since 2010, California has used a “jungle primary” system instead of traditional partisan primaries. Every voter receives an identical ballot listing all contenders, with the two highest vote-getters moving forward to the general election without regard to party membership.

Polling data from mid-to-late May indicates Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton each command roughly 20 percent support among probable voters. One survey placed Democrat Tom Steyer in close competition with Becerra and Hilton, while Republican Chad Bianco and Democrat Katie Porter showed weaker performance, though another poll found similar backing levels for Steyer, Bianco and Porter. No other contenders reached double-digit support in either survey.

With 61 candidates listed on the ballot, financial resources and media focus have concentrated on several experienced political figures. These are the leading competitors.

Becerra brings three and a half decades of experience in California and federal government. He held a Democratic leadership position in the U.S. House before then-Governor Jerry Brown selected him as California attorney general following Kamala Harris’s election to the U.S. Senate. From this position, he mounted aggressive legal challenges against Trump and his policies throughout the president’s initial term.

Subsequently, he joined President Joe Biden’s administration as secretary of Health and Human Services.

This background forms the foundation of his appeal to voters as a reliable leader capable of governing California and confronting Trump. However, it has also drawn criticism.

Former Biden administration colleagues have questioned his performance as health secretary, and he continues facing inquiries about a former senior aide’s conviction for misappropriating campaign money.

Following Swalwell’s exit, Becerra gained backing from numerous California Democratic leaders, including major labor organizations, Planned Parenthood and the LGBTQ rights organization Equality California.

Trump’s backing provides Hilton an advantage among Republicans and potentially the most direct route to the general election among all candidates. However, this could prove problematic in November within a state that heavily rejected the Republican president. During debate appearances, Hilton typically refrained from discussing Trump without being asked directly.

Hilton works as a conservative political commentator and previously hosted shows on Fox News. Born in England, he provided advisory services to former British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Acknowledging Democratic dominance throughout California, he encourages voters to choose a Republican to balance the majority in Sacramento. Unlike Bianco’s emphasis on cultural matters, Hilton’s platform aligns more closely with traditional Republican priorities of reduced taxation and limited government. He has promised to eliminate income taxes on the first $100,000 of earnings and significantly reduce gasoline costs.

As the billionaire creator of a San Francisco hedge fund, Steyer — or at least his image — appears ubiquitously before the primary. His unprecedented spending, primarily from personal wealth, has made his advertisements unavoidable. This has elevated him among the race’s leading candidates.

Steyer, who lacks elected office experience, initially gained recognition as a contributor to Democratic politicians and organizations focused on climate change advocacy. He funded efforts demanding Trump’s impeachment during his first presidency, and subsequently invested in his own 2020 Democratic presidential campaign before withdrawing after poor results in early primary states and caucuses.

Steyer campaigns as a progressive populist, criticizing the political influence of special interests and corporations. His platform has attracted unexpected supporters for a billionaire investor, including the Bernie Sanders-affiliated organization Our Revolution.

Serving as mayor of San Jose, Mahan represents a moderate Democrat embracing Silicon Valley’s innovation-focused philosophy. His pro-business approach and entrepreneurial experience have gained favor among some technology sector leaders.

Mahan advocates California should return to “basics,” prioritizing technical problem-solving over political conflicts. He joined the race recently as an outsider to Sacramento establishment, developing statewide recognition primarily through criticism of Newsom and the Legislature’s handling of homelessness and criminal activity.

His support from technology executives — along with their substantial financial contributions — has created controversy within certain party segments, especially among labor unions and populists concerned about Silicon Valley elite influence.

Nevertheless, he has found difficulty unifying support among pro-business progressives, with some supporters maintaining multiple options. Google co-founder Sergey Brin and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale also contributed to Republican Steve Hilton.

Previously an academic, Porter gained recognition through whiteboard presentations and clear policy explanations during three congressional terms representing Orange County. Her confrontational exchanges with corporate executives during Capitol Hill testimony became widely shared online.

Porter emphasizes her populist, anti-corporate credentials, claiming she can advocate for ordinary Californians against powerful entities. Prior to seeking office, she served as California’s independent banking monitor in the national mortgage settlement after the 2008 financial crisis.

Her policy expertise has earned endorsements from newspaper editorial boards. However, she has faced challenges regarding her leadership temperament. Leaked recordings revealed her harshly criticizing a staff member visible in a Zoom call and threatening to abandon a television interview. She has issued apologies and committed to more respectful treatment of others.

Porter sought a Senate seat in 2024, but did not advance past the primary.

The former Los Angeles mayor and state Assembly speaker has found limited success after spending more than ten years away from public service.

Once a union organizer, Villaraigosa became Los Angeles’s first Latino mayor in over 100 years, serving from 2005 through 2013.

Villaraigosa promotes his experience in LA and the state Capitol, campaigning as a practical, moderate problem-solver in subtle contrast to Democratic opponents highlighting their progressive ideological commitments.

Villaraigosa’s background lies in Southern California’s political network, which would differ from four terms under Brown and Newsom, both governors from the San Francisco Bay Area.

He sought the governorship in 2018 but placed third in the primary.

Bianco serves as Riverside County sheriff and highlights his 30-year law enforcement career, promising to address crime and homelessness.

As a strong Trump supporter, Bianco gained national attention when his department confiscated 1,000 boxes of election materials including over 500,000 ballots from a 2025 special election concerning redistricting. He claims this represents legitimate criminal investigation work, while critics view it as acknowledgment of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that motivate Trump’s supporters. The state Supreme Court ordered him to stop the investigation in April.

The seizure created conflict with California’s Democratic attorney general and increased his visibility among Republicans.

NEW YORK (AP) — New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani plans to skip Sunday’s Israel Day parade, ending a political tradition that has spanned decades due to his advocacy for Palestinian rights.

The annual celebration honoring Israel has historically drawn mayors, governors and other elected officials who march alongside thousands of participants waving flags along Fifth Avenue to commemorate the Jewish state’s founding in 1948.

Mamdani’s absence comes two weeks after his administration released a video recognizing the Nakba, which translates to “catastrophe” in Arabic and refers to the forced relocation of approximately 700,000 Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict that occurred after Israel’s creation.

“I said on the campaign trail that I wouldn’t be attending the parade, and I’ve made my views on the Israeli government abundantly clear,” Mamdani stated during Thursday’s press briefing.

Despite his absence, the mayor assured extensive law enforcement coverage to ensure the event proceeds “seamlessly and peacefully.”

“While I will not be attending, our administration has been preparing for weeks to ensure the parade is safe for all those who take part,” he explained.

Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, who is Jewish, announced her intention to participate in the parade.

“It is the mayor’s decision not to march, and it is my decision to march proudly,” she declared while standing next to Mamdani at police headquarters.

The mayor’s anticipated absence has intensified criticism from opponents who characterize his stance against the Israeli government as antisemitic.

Rabbi Marc Schneier, founding senior rabbi of The Hampton Synagogue on Long Island and president of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, which promotes Jewish-Muslim relations, described Mamdani’s parade boycott as “a slap in the face to all Jewish New Yorkers.”

“Do us a favor, stay home,” he declared. “We don’t need you. We don’t want you.”

Schneier also criticized Mamdani’s Nakba video as “propaganda,” joining other Jewish community leaders who argued it lacked important context regarding Jewish displacement during that era.

The video, marking what appears to be the first official Nakba acknowledgment by a sitting New York City mayor, told the story of a woman displaced at age 9, combined with explanatory text about the Nakba. She spoke about longing for home, saying “it’s the soft hills of Palestine that actually touched me.”

“I’ve lived in different places, and I’ve always been an outsider,” the woman, Inea Bushnaq, shared.

Pro-Israel advocates expressed anger, arguing the video should have recognized the widespread displacement of Jews from Muslim-majority nations or acknowledged how the Holocaust’s mass murder of Jews influenced the movement to create a Jewish homeland.

New York City mayors, leading America’s largest Jewish community, have traditionally demonstrated strong support for Israel, frequently making official visits to the country.

However, American support for Israel has significantly declined in recent years, a shift that has accelerated following widespread criticism of Israeli military operations in Gaza.

Mamdani, the city’s first Muslim mayor, has maintained his pro-Palestinian position throughout his tenure.

He has expressed belief in Israel’s right to exist while opposing what he views as a system that privileges Jewish citizens. At the same time, he has committed to protecting Jewish New Yorkers and promoted the city’s Office to Combat Antisemitism.

Governor Mikie Sherrill blamed outside agitators for escalating tensions during demonstrations at a Newark immigration detention facility, speaking at a Saturday news conference after deploying state police to control the situation.

According to Sherrill, five of the six individuals taken into custody Friday evening were not New Jersey residents. She stated that “national extremist groups” joined the demonstrations Saturday, heightening tensions in the state’s largest city.

“You should not be here,” she said of those who came to create chaos. “You are not helping the people detained at Delaney Hall. You’re not helping detainee families and you’re certainly not keeping New Jersey safe.”

State authorities established “protected protest zones” on Friday following multiple days of clashes between demonstrators and federal officers outside the Delaney facility. The 1,000-bed detention center houses individuals who initiated both labor and hunger strikes to highlight what they describe as inhumane conditions while demanding their freedom.

“That’s exactly where our focus needs to be right now, advocating for better conditions for those inside the facility,” Sherrill said. “We can’t let what’s happening outside Delaney Hall take us away from that mission.”

Sherrill expressed appreciation for “the vast majority of protesters who have assembled peacefully and raised their voices about Delaney Hall conditions.”

The Geo Group operates the Delaney facility under contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has rejected claims about facility conditions and praised the state police involvement as a “win for law and order.”

However, Sherrill, a Democrat, criticized federal officials for worsening the situation, citing ICE’s use of batons against protesters and other crowd control methods she deemed inappropriate. “They have been increasing tensions in a way that’s not helpful to public safety,” she said.

The governor, who has advocated for shutting down Delaney Hall, stated her objectives were maintaining peaceful demonstrations and public safety while preventing an influx of federal agents.

“What we have been working towards now is ensuring that ICE has no pretextual reason whatsoever to exacerbate this situation,” Sherrill said at a news conference.

Confrontations between immigration enforcement and demonstrators have occasionally become violent in other locations, particularly in Minnesota, where federal personnel killed two people and wounded others.

New Jersey authorities have attempted to establish designated areas for peaceful demonstrations, state officials reported. However, protesters ordered to leave Friday night encircled a police vehicle and threatened officers, according to state police Lieutenant Colonel David Sierotowicz on Saturday.

Sierotowicz observed some activists gathering face coverings, gas masks, fireworks, stones and other projectiles from a nearby tent location.

Friday’s footage showed officers moving forward with riot shields while deploying tear gas. Sierotowicz explained that police employed standard crowd dispersal methods, resulting in no serious injuries to civilians or law enforcement.

“We were not striking anybody last night,” he said.

State officials emphasized that demonstrations are acceptable provided they remain nonviolent. By mid-afternoon Saturday, dozens of protesters were chanting behind police-established barriers.

“Today and going forward, I urge those protesting outside of Delaney Hall to bring the temperature down, so we can focus on the detainees and their families,” Sherrill said.

A federal judge has issued a temporary injunction preventing the Trump administration from shutting down the Kennedy Center for repair work and has mandated the removal of President Donald Trump’s name from the facility and its website, determining that any formal name change requires congressional authorization.

US District Judge Christopher Cooper delivered the ruling on Friday, giving the administration two weeks to remove all Trump references from the center and its digital platforms. Cooper’s 94-page decision, released on President John F. Kennedy’s birthday, determined that Congress holds sole authority over changing the institution’s name, not the center’s governing board.

“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it,” Cooper wrote.

The judge determined that labeling the facility as the “Trump Kennedy Center” went beyond simply using an alternative name. Cooper referenced signage that identified the venue as “The Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts” and concluded that this modification changed the institution’s official identity.

“The ‘Trump Kennedy Center’ label adds an entirely new name to the Center’s formal title and relegates President Kennedy’s name to second place. If that is not a renaming, what is?” Cooper wrote.

Cooper rejected the administration’s contention that no actual renaming had occurred.

“They instead submit that everything is not what it seems,” Cooper wrote.

“The rechristening is not, as Defendants suggest, like calling the ‘Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection’ the ‘Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,’ which is merely a clerical rearrangement,” he added.

President Trump pushed back by justifying his plans to renovate the facility, characterizing the proposed renovations as essential for addressing significant structural and safety issues. He also attacked Cooper, alleging political prejudice and conflicts of interest.

“I cannot be involved with a situation where danger to the Public is allowed to flourish in plain and open sight. Unless I am free to do what I do better than anyone else, bring this Institution back, physically, financially, and artistically, I have no interest in continuing what could only be a hopeless journey into ‘NEVER NEVER LAND,’” President Trump wrote.

The president indicated he would pursue congressional involvement regarding the center’s future, stating he would collaborate with lawmakers “to transfer this failing Institution back to them so they can make a determination as to what to do with it.”

WASHINGTON — A planned celebration marking America’s quarter-millennium milestone will now feature President Donald Trump as its main draw after multiple musical performers withdrew due to concerns about the event’s political associations, organizers announced Saturday.

Writing on his Truth Social platform Saturday, Trump acknowledged that performers were experiencing nervousness about appearing at the event, suggesting he might bring “the man who some say is the Greatest President in History (THE GOAT!), DONALD J. TRUMP, to take the place of these highly paid, Third Rate ‘Artists.’”

Freedom 250, the organization behind the June celebration scheduled for Washington’s National Mall, issued a statement confirming Trump’s participation, stating “we are excited to announce that President Trump will personally kick off this historic celebration.”

In his social media announcement, Trump referred to the event happening on “Wednesday” in two separate instances, despite the fair’s actual start date of June 25. The White House has not yet addressed this timing inconsistency.

Danielle Alvarez, speaking for Freedom 250, highlighted that the extended celebration running until July 10 will feature diverse offerings including displays, family activities, musical acts, aerial demonstrations and additional entertainment.

While Freedom 250 markets itself as politically neutral, the organization was established last year by Trump and operates under leadership from a former State Department official who served during Trump’s initial presidency. Last week saw the departure of multiple performers including Bret Michaels, the Commodores and Martina McBride.

Michaels along with other departing artists indicated they felt deceived regarding the event’s nature or expressed reluctance to become involved in political controversy.

Several entertainers remain committed to participating, including Flo Rida, Fab Morvan of Milli Vanilli and Vanilla Ice. A representative for the “Ice Ice Baby” performer previously stated he was “proud to help celebrate America’s 250th Anniversary!”

WORCESTER, Mass. — Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton achieved a crucial milestone Saturday, earning sufficient delegate backing to qualify for the primary ballot in his challenge against sitting U.S. Senator Ed Markey in the upcoming Senate contest.

Despite Moulton’s success in meeting the ballot threshold, Markey claimed the Democratic Party’s official endorsement by capturing more than half of the delegation’s votes.

“You have a choice, you have to decide what the future looks like and what you’re going to demand,” Markey told an audience of over 4,000 delegates on Saturday.

The incumbent senator captured approximately 73% of delegate backing, while Moulton received roughly 27%. State Democratic Party regulations mandate that candidates for statewide office must obtain at least 15% of delegate support to qualify for primary ballots.

In the heavily blue state of Massachusetts, this Senate primary battle has drawn national attention as the 47-year-old Moulton has built his campaign around calls for changing established patterns and pushing for younger leadership.

Should Markey win reelection, he would reach age 80 before starting his third six-year Senate term. Although Markey has highlighted his energy and progressive stance, concerns about age continue to follow Democratic candidates as the party works to regain Congressional control.

During his nomination address, Moulton contended that Democrats required more than “incremental change” and needed fresh beginnings.

“It’s time for the generation that grew up with the internet, and will have to live for decades with AI, to lead our way through it,” Moulton declared.

The congressman made only brief references to his rival during his speech, mentioning the need to avoid waiting another six years for leadership transition and later urging Markey to agree to multiple debates ahead of the September primary. The candidates have currently committed to participating in a single debate this summer.

Markey adopted a more confrontational strategy, criticizing Moulton’s past statements regarding transgender youth and his acceptance of corporate PAC funding.

“Massachusetts deserves better than a senator who scapegoats trans kids,” Markey stated to enthusiastic applause.

In 2024, Moulton faced criticism from party colleagues after stating he wouldn’t want his daughters competing in sports against transgender girls. Opponents argued Moulton was repeating Trump’s positions on transgender athlete participation in girls’ and women’s athletics.

Moulton later clarified that his statement “was to point out that, as a party, we need to be willing to have difficult conversations.”

The congressman, who joined the Marines following the September 11, 2001, attacks and completed four combat deployments in Iraq, first won his House seat in 2014. He mounted a brief presidential campaign in 2020 before ending it after several months.

Markey represented Massachusetts in the House for almost four decades before capturing his Senate position in 2013. He successfully defended against a 2020 primary challenge from Rep. Joe Kennedy III by mobilizing progressive supporters to defeat the younger candidate from one of America’s most prominent political dynasties.

The Massachusetts primary election is scheduled for Sept. 1.

President Donald Trump unleashed criticism Saturday against the federal judge who halted his planned Kennedy Center renovation, calling U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper “an anti Trump Hater” and warning the performing arts venue “will soon be closed, probably never to open again.”

Trump’s lengthy Truth Social post expressed frustration over Cooper’s Friday ruling, which also mandated removal of Trump’s name from the center. The president connected this legal defeat to previous setbacks, including the Supreme Court’s February rejection of his comprehensive tariffs, stating it was “impossible for me to be treated fairly.”

While Trump’s message defended the renovation project, he didn’t indicate whether he would pursue further court action. Following Cooper’s decision, Trump announced he was stepping back from the renovations and would transfer control back to Congress for what had previously been called the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts before his second term began.

The White House has not clarified Trump’s current stance or confirmed whether he will remain as the center’s board chairman.

Trump pointed blame toward Cooper’s spouse, attorney Amy Jeffress, without providing supporting evidence. He highlighted that Jeffress works as a partner at Hecker Fink law firm and previously served as a counselor to Attorney General Eric Holder under Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration. Cooper received his judicial nomination from Obama.

Trump also mentioned that Hecker Fink represents former President Joe Biden in litigation against the Department of Justice, seeking to prevent release of audio recordings and transcripts from the Democrat’s conversations with a ghostwriter. These materials were gathered during an investigation into Biden’s management of classified documents from his Senate and vice presidential years.

Describing the Kennedy Center as “rusted, rotted, and rat and bug infested,” Trump claimed the “new Building would have been incomparable.” The center, honoring the late Democratic president, opened its doors in 1971.

In his decision, Cooper characterized the center board’s March 16 closure vote as “ill-informed and seemingly preordained” without consideration of legal responsibilities. The administration had scheduled construction to start in July with an estimated two-year duration. Cooper’s order temporarily stops these plans.

Cooper determined the board “overstepped its statutory bounds” by attaching Trump’s name to the facility. Since Congress designated the Kennedy Center’s name, only Congress holds authority to modify it, the judge explained. Cooper mandated Trump’s name removal within a two-week timeframe.

Trump clarified Saturday that the board, rather than himself, decided to add his name to the center. “They thought it would be good for this dying Institution,” he stated.

After taking office in January 2025, he removed the center’s existing leadership and installed his chosen board of trustees, who subsequently appointed him as chairman.

Cooper conducted hearings in late April for two related lawsuits challenging the renovation. Cultural and historic preservation groups filed one lawsuit, while Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat serving as an ex officio board member through her congressional role, brought the other. Cooper sided with Beatty’s petition while dismissing the alternative challenge.

Trump’s post also referenced Jeffress’ firm’s representation of E. Jean Carroll, the advice columnist who alleges Trump sexually assaulted her in a New York department store three decades ago.

Jeffress has not yet responded to requests for comment.

A federal judge in Florida has announced plans to examine a controversial settlement deal between the Justice Department and President Donald Trump regarding his $10 billion legal action against the Internal Revenue Service, adding new scrutiny to the widely criticized arrangement.

The president had sued his own administration claiming improper handling of his tax documents led to media leaks. The proposed settlement would establish an approximately $1.8 billion compensation fund for those affected by alleged political weaponization.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams directed Trump’s legal team to provide a response by June 12 to allegations from 35 former federal judges who claim the settlement “is a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the court.” The attorneys must also address whether the case should be reopened due to claims the lawsuit resulted from “deception” by Trump and the government.

After reaching the settlement, Trump attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed to avoid judicial review of the agreement.

Williams had initially approved that dismissal on May 18, but her latest ruling states the “court is empowered to investigate serious misconduct.”

It represents an uncommon situation for a judge to require government responses to motions following case dismissal. Should the judge decide to reopen proceedings, she might schedule hearings or pursue additional measures.

The former judges argued the settlement, which was never presented to the court, creates serious concerns about Trump and the government’s conduct “and manipulation of the judicial system, which threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice.”

In a separate development, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia issued a temporary prohibition Friday against the Trump administration establishing the “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” Brinkema’s directive remains effective through at least June 12.

The compensation fund has generated opposition, including from some Republican Party legislators in Trump’s party, who voiced frustration that individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack might receive government-funded payments. Critics have labeled it a “slush fund.”

The settlement would also prevent the IRS from conducting future audits of past tax filings for Trump, his family members, and his businesses for returns submitted before May 18 or regarding any issues “that were raised or could have been raised.”

Legal professionals have characterized the arrangement as highly irregular due to both the unusual nature of Trump’s IRS lawsuit and because compensation funds of this magnitude are typically established through congressional legislation or court oversight.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump announced Saturday that he’s weighing whether to call off a series of musical performances planned to mark America’s 250th anniversary celebration, following withdrawals by several performers, and may opt for delivering a speech instead.

The latest artist to back out was Bret Michaels, lead singer of the rock band Poison, who on Friday became the fifth performer to pull out of the “Freedom 250” concert series. The musical events are set to run from June 25 through July 10 at Washington’s National Mall.

In a Saturday post on Truth Social, Trump floated the idea of hosting a speech and rally, describing himself as “the Number One Attraction anywhere in the World, the man who gets much larger audiences than Elvis in his prime and he does so without a guitar.”

Federal prosecutors are demanding a judge remove herself from a Georgia election records dispute, claiming her participation in an event celebrating Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis creates concerns about her impartiality in the case.

Court investigators issued a “private reprimand” to a federal judge in the 11th Judicial Circuit after determining she engaged in sexual activity in the courthouse with a senior uniformed police officer within hearing distance of court staff, participated in a partisan political event, and initially provided false statements denying the accusations.

The court’s probe did not reveal the judge’s name or specific courthouse location within the 11th Circuit, which covers Alabama, Florida and Georgia. Federal prosecutors are basing their recusal request on news reports identifying U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross in Atlanta as the subject of the investigation.

The Associated Press could not verify the judge’s identity independently. A staff member answering calls at Ross’ office Friday indicated the judge was not available and directed inquiries about the accusations to the court’s media relations department, which stated, “Judge Ross has no comment right now.” The media office did not respond Saturday to follow-up questions about the federal recusal motion.

While federal judges serve lifetime appointments, they face potential disciplinary measures including censure, public or private reprimands, and temporary case suspensions. Removal requires congressional impeachment proceedings.

Ross received her nomination in January 2014 from then-President Barack Obama, a Democrat, with Senate confirmation following in November of that year. She previously presided over state court matters in DeKalb County, which encompasses a portion of Atlanta, beginning in 2011. Before her judicial career, she spent over ten years as a state and federal prosecutor, primarily in Atlanta.

Ross currently handles the election records lawsuit filed by federal prosecutors against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Federal prosecutors have initiated legal action against several states seeking complete voter registration databases. Raffensperger maintains that Georgia statutes prevent disclosure of voters’ private information without meeting specific requirements, which he says the federal government has not satisfied. He indicated that Georgia provided the publicly available portion of voter records to federal authorities in December.

Ross has set a Wednesday hearing for the matter, though federal prosecutors want to postpone that proceeding pending their recusal request.

In the disciplinary matter involving the unnamed federal judge, the Judicial Council of the 11th Circuit decided in a February ruling to issue a private reprimand while maintaining the judge’s anonymity. The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States upheld that decision on May 22.

The investigation findings attached to the ruling indicate the judge attended a function hosted by a district attorney’s campaign. The judge admitted going to the event to meet with former district attorney’s office colleagues at a private gathering held at the same location but separate from the prosecutor’s victory celebration.

Ross previously served in the Fulton County district attorney’s office and worked alongside Willis before Willis became district attorney.

Willis launched an investigation into Trump and associates for potential 2020 election interference in Fulton County shortly after taking office in January 2021. Her examination included a January 2021 telephone conversation where Trump pressed Raffensperger to help “find” sufficient votes to reverse Democrat Joe Biden’s Georgia victory in the 2020 presidential race.

Willis secured an indictment in August 2023 against Trump and 18 co-defendants, charging them with participating in an extensive conspiracy to reverse Georgia’s 2020 election outcome. An appeals court ultimately dismissed the case in November after determining an “appearance of impropriety” resulted from a romantic relationship Willis maintained with the external attorney she recruited to spearhead the prosecution.

“A judge who attended a party celebrating the election of a Democrat best known for prosecuting a Republican President for alleged election interference cannot then preside over a case concerning that President’s efforts to ensure election integrity,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in their filing Friday.

Federal prosecutors contended that any “objective reasonable observer” would interpret Ross’ attendance at Willis’ election night celebration as supporting her election and official actions.

“If Judge Ross is indeed the Subject Judge, that conduct gives rise to an appearance of bias, which requires Judge Ross to recuse herself from this election-related case,” the Justice Department filing says.

The federal filing briefly references the accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct with a police officer in the judge’s chambers and subsequent false denials, but notes “those are not the subject of this Motion.”

Additionally, the Atlanta Police Department announced it has launched an investigation to determine whether the “high-ranking law enforcement officer” found to have engaged in sexual activity with a federal judge in chambers belongs to their department.

WESTFIELD, N.J. — Constituents in a competitive New Jersey congressional district are demanding answers about their representative’s mysterious absence that has now lasted nearly three months.

Republican Representative Tom Kean Jr. has been missing from Washington due to what his team calls a medical emergency, leaving voters frustrated and concerned about representation in a closely-watched swing district.

During a recent community meeting in Westfield focused on affordable housing and data centers, retired attorney Steve McCabe, 80, pressed state Senator Jon Bramnick for information about the congressman’s whereabouts.

“What’s the word?” McCabe asked the GOP state senator.

Bramnick couldn’t provide details about Kean’s medical situation but shared memories of their time serving together in the state legislature, when Kean would brave severe weather to avoid missing votes.

“I said, ‘Tom, we should really turn around,’” Bramnick remembered of one snowy night.

The congressman’s extended absence has created a political puzzle with national implications. His 7th Congressional District ranks among Democrats’ priority targets as they work to regain congressional control.

Kean hasn’t cast a vote since March 5 and has been absent from both Washington and his home district during this period. He has now missed more than 100 congressional votes.

Despite the prolonged absence, Kean’s office maintains he plans to seek reelection. He faces no Republican primary opposition in Tuesday’s contest, while multiple Democrats compete for their party’s nomination.

Campaign consultant Harrison Neely described the situation as a medical emergency requiring immediate attention.

“This was an emergency, you don’t get to plan these,” Neely explained. “There’s no good timing for this.”

Neely promised that Kean would provide full transparency about his condition and resume normal duties “very soon.”

The prolonged absence has surprised even political allies familiar with Kean’s dedication to his duties.

“For him not to be there, that’s a big deal,” Bramnick observed.

Kean’s district encompasses suburban communities and smaller municipalities, including the location of President Donald Trump’s Bedminster golf course.

Though redistricting in 2021 made the area more Republican-friendly, the district has changed hands in consecutive midterm elections. Democrat Tom Malinowski defeated Republican Leonard Lance in 2018, before losing to Kean in 2022.

House Speaker Mike Johnson recently addressed the situation, expressing confidence in Kean’s return.

“We’re expecting him back here soon,” the Louisiana Republican stated. “He’s going to be fully transparent.”

Kean belongs to a prominent political dynasty. His father previously held the governor’s office, while an ancestor led New Jersey following American independence.

A local political publication reported receiving a phone call from Kean this month, though he didn’t detail his medical condition.

“My doctors are confident that I’m on the road to a full recovery,” he reportedly told the New Jersey Globe.

McCabe, who initially questioned Bramnick about Kean’s status, said news reports about the absence prompted his inquiry.

“I hope he’s not sick,” he commented.

Bruce Paterson, a 75-year-old retired engineer from Garwood, described himself as a “regular Democrat, not like the crazy Democrats they have today.” Despite his party affiliation, he plans supporting Kean in November’s general election.

“I hope he comes back,” Paterson said. “I mean, will I vote for him? Probably only because we need a nice balance” in a predominantly Democratic state.

During the town hall, one attendee asked Bramnick whether he would accept the Republican nomination if Kean withdrew after Tuesday’s primary. Such a scenario would trigger a convention among county party leaders to select a replacement candidate.

Bramnick repeatedly emphasized Kean’s reelection plans while questioning his own compatibility with today’s Republican Party. Unlike Kean, who prominently displays Trump’s endorsement on social media, Bramnick has criticized the former president, including during his unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign.

“I’m not considered the biggest fan of Donald Trump,” Bramnick acknowledged. “I don’t think that the Republican Party is interested in sending someone to Washington that may vote yes or no depending on how I feel about the issue.”

Democratic primary candidates have criticized Kean’s failure to communicate with constituents about his situation.

“Tom Kean disappeared from the job,” said Michael Roth, a former Small Business Administration official seeking the Democratic nomination.

Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy pilot also running for the Democratic nomination, wished Kean well while criticizing his congressional record, particularly regarding infrastructure funding.

“He was nowhere to be found when funding got cut for the Gateway Tunnel, which is a critical infrastructure project in our district,” she stated.

Other Democratic candidates Tina Shah, an intensive care unit doctor, and Brian Varela, who founded a marketing agency, have also criticized Kean during campaign debates.

Political analyst Benjamin Dworkin, who directs the Rowan Institute for Public Policy & Citizenship, believes Kean still has opportunities to reconnect with voters before November, given his current financial advantages over potential Democratic opponents.

“The issue is not going to be that he was out for a hundred plus votes in the spring,” Dworkin explained. “The question is really, how effective is he going to get once he returns?”

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional efforts to find accountability in the Jeffrey Epstein case have stretched nearly a year, with survivors of sexual abuse pushing lawmakers to put partisan differences aside in their pursuit of answers.

However, despite conducting interviews with some of the most senior officials ever questioned in a congressional probe, including a former president, legislators have achieved minimal results regarding criminal responsibility for Epstein’s offenses or clear recognition of governmental shortcomings.

California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, who authored legislation requiring the disclosure of Epstein case documents, expressed to The Associated Press his continued questioning: “Why there has not been a single investigation of people who have allegedly abused or committed financial crimes?”

Legislators anticipated obtaining answers during Friday’s transcribed session with Pam Bondi, President Donald Trump’s former attorney general who supervised the document release.

However, the session left Democrats frustrated with Bondi’s choice to support the Trump administration’s management of the materials and her unwillingness to address questions regarding the Republican president’s connection. Democratic representatives also criticized Republican Rep. James Comer, chair of the House Oversight Committee, claiming he has permitted administration officials to evade difficult congressional questioning.

Survivors of Epstein’s abuse, including multiple individuals who journeyed to Washington to confront Bondi, found this development disheartening during a period when many are exhausted from advocating before government officials. They contend the Department of Justice’s disorganized document release, containing nude photographs and personal details of potential victims, has compounded broader criminal justice system failures to trust or safeguard them.

“The government’s refusal to acknowledge the failures that were there have led to so much harm,” said Annie Farmer. “And I think whenever you’re thinking about things from a perspective of justice or healing, without acknowledgment, it’s really hard to move forward.”

The committee’s probe has demonstrated notable bipartisan cooperation, with Democrats and Republicans collaborating to issue subpoenas and compel witness testimony. Beyond Bondi, legislators have questioned former Democratic President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Trump’s commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick.

This collaboration demonstrates lawmakers’ readiness to transcend political boundaries when facing substantial public pressure. Numerous women have alleged sexual abuse and rape by Epstein, a wealthy and well-connected financier, including incidents occurring after his 2008 agreement with federal prosecutors to resolve a federal investigation by pleading guilty to state-level sex offense charges in Florida.

Epstein, discovered deceased in a New York detention facility in 2019 while facing sex trafficking allegations, was accused of compensating underage girls hundreds of dollars for massages before sexually assaulting them.

His situation has fascinated the public as an illustration of how wealthy and influential individuals avoid consequences for misconduct. Lawmakers addressed the matter last year following the administration’s failure to fulfill transparency commitments regarding the case.

Although the investigation began in the United States, the Epstein reckoning has been comparatively restrained domestically versus Europe. Overseas, senior government officials in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway and Slovakia have all resigned due to their Epstein connections.

During its investigation, the House committee interviewed some of Epstein’s closest associates, including his former financial client Les Wexner, his lawyer Darren Indyke and his accountant Richard Kahn. The Clintons, Lutnick and others were also summoned to testify.

All provided essentially identical responses: They claimed no knowledge of Epstein abusing underage girls.

Nevertheless, the Epstein file disclosure has produced consequences. At least eight American academic and business leaders have been removed from powerful positions, including former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers from Harvard University teaching and Kathy Ruemmler from her Goldman Sachs chief legal officer role.

Bank of America and Epstein’s estate have reached multimillion-dollar agreements with women who accused the institutions of enabling Epstein’s sex-trafficking activities.

Comer, R-Ky., announced last week that three individuals allegedly involved in abuse were identified during an interview with Epstein’s former personal assistant, Sarah Kellen. The congresswoman intends to question six additional people connected to Epstein in upcoming weeks, including billionaire Bill Gates, private equity investor Leon Black, former Barclays Bank CEO Jes Staley and Ruemmler.

“The government has failed the survivors. There’s no doubt about that,” Comer said, adding, “What we’re trying to do is connect all the dots and see if there is a way to hold people accountable.”

However, lawmakers have been troubled witnessing accountability for Epstein-connected figures like Britain’s former Prince Andrew while the administration has repeatedly attempted to move beyond the matter.

“A prince has been taken down and here in the United States, our Department of Justice, which is sitting on millions of files, is refusing to act,” said Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., referencing unreleased case documents the Justice Department is withholding citing duplication or legal publication restrictions.

“That is not a failure, that is a choice,” Stansbury said.

Survivors and Democratic lawmakers have also objected to the administration’s decision to transfer Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime confidant and former girlfriend, to a minimum-security prison facility. She is serving a 20-year sentence for recruiting teenage girls for Epstein to abuse.

Distributed nationwide and occupied with their personal lives, Epstein abuse survivors have made multiple Washington trips to advocate for government action. Following years of court battles and privately sharing traumatic experiences, they have become increasingly vocal in seeking accountability.

“It is very taxing to be continually focused on this case,” Farmer said. She noted that despite the government’s response falling short of her expectations, she has observed a broader cultural movement addressing sexual predation.

For Marina Lacerda, another survivor, “Accountability is kind of hard right now. But we are looking for saving the next generation.”

However, they also seek the administration’s attention to their experiences. Seeking the president’s consideration, several victims testified this month at a hearing near Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida organized by House committee Democrats.

For some survivors, returning to South Florida provided an opportunity to finally receive a hearing. Jena-Lisa Jones informed the panel she was 14 years old when Epstein abused her in Palm Beach.

She urged the lawmakers: “Find a way to bring closure to the story of Jeffrey Epstein to allow survivors and this country to finally begin to move forward so that one day, and I pray soon, Jeffrey Epstein’s name is no longer something we are forced to hear every single day.”

A former South Carolina lawyer who unlawfully entered the U.S. Capitol alongside supporters of President Donald Trump on January 6, 2021, is now positioning himself to assist other participants in seeking compensation from the administration’s newly created $1.776 billion settlement fund for those claiming government persecution.

David Johnston plans to charge a 10% fee for his services, with a maximum of $5,000 per case.

“I think the narrative is changing” about how the history of that day is being told, Johnston said in a video he posted to social media. “I think good things are happening for us.”

Numerous Trump supporters who admitted guilt for their involvement in the Capitol breach are now seeking financial benefits through the settlement fund, which was established to compensate the Republican president’s supporters who claim they faced politically motivated prosecution. Many of these individuals have received presidential pardons.

Despite opposition from both political parties and current legal obstacles that have temporarily halted the fund’s implementation, many January 6 participants remain optimistic about receiving taxpayer-funded compensation. Some are already preparing claims even though no formal application procedure exists and a judge has temporarily blocked the fund’s creation.

Those opposing the fund view it as an attempt by Trump and his supporters to revise the narrative of January 6 events, retroactively legitimize the assault on democratic institutions, and provide financial rewards to Trump’s most devoted followers.

Jason Riddle, a New Hampshire military veteran who served 90 days in prison after admitting to riot-related charges, declined Trump’s pardon offer. He also expressed strong opposition to government compensation for January 6 participants.

“I’d love money, but I can’t accept that. That would bother me for the rest of my life,” he said. “We weren’t innocently persecuted just because of who we are or who we vote for. We were persecuted for committing criminal behavior in the Capitol of the United States.”

However, many other participants do not share Riddle’s position.

Among those expressing interest in compensation are a Florida individual who photographed himself with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s podium, a New Jersey participant whom prosecutors described as having Nazi sympathies, and a Texas man who received seven years in prison for entering the Capitol while carrying a metal tomahawk.

Pamela Hemphill of Oregon, who received a 60-day jail sentence, declined Trump’s pardon but has prepared a compensation claim seeking $5 million. Unlike many participants who blame Democrats for their legal troubles, Hemphill holds Trump responsible for her situation.

“I wouldn’t have been through all of this if Trump hadn’t lied about the election being stolen,” she said during a telephone interview. “It’s a direct result of his lies that I was even there that day.”

Whether individuals convicted of Capitol-related crimes qualify for payments from the fund, which originated from Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS regarding leaked tax returns, remains uncertain.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has not eliminated that possibility. Blanche stated that while anyone can apply, five commissioners who have yet to be appointed will determine eligibility based on factors including the applicant’s actions, sentence, and time served.

“That’s up to the commissioners,” Blanche told The Associated Press on Thursday when asked about his position on whether violent Jan. 6 defendants should be eligible for payments.

“You have to define something and then stick to it. That’s something I’ve been hesitant to try to do, because it’s very fact-intensive,” Blanche said. “Me sitting here and talking in hypotheticals is something that I don’t think is fair to the process.”

Congressional intervention regarding payments to January 6 participants remains unclear. Frustrated Senate Republicans have indicated they want to establish fund restrictions through Department of Homeland Security spending legislation. They departed abruptly earlier this month following a contentious meeting with Blanche and are scheduled to return Monday with the matter still unresolved.

A Virginia federal judge has temporarily halted the fund’s establishment and blocked claim processing or payments. This ruling came Friday as part of at least three legal challenges to the fund.

Brendan Ballou, a former prosecutor who handled multiple January 6 cases before departing the Department of Justice last year, filed suit representing two police officers who defended the Capitol. Ballou considers the fund’s creation part of Trump’s broader effort to undermine democratic institutions and alter January 6’s historical record.

“And if the president is successful in that effort, if he’s able to get people to either forget or condone that day, he knows that he can get people to accept any attack on democracy,” Ballou said.

Approximately 1,600 individuals faced federal charges related to the Capitol breach. Over 1,200 received convictions and sentences before Trump issued widespread pardons and ordered dismissal of all remaining January 6 cases. Trump also released far-right extremist group members who had been imprisoned for planning the Capitol attack to maintain Trump’s presidency after his 2020 election loss to Biden.

The January 6 community is not the only pro-Trump group seeking fund compensation.

Meshawn Maddock, who faced charges as an alleged fake elector for Trump in Michigan before a judge dismissed her case last year, confirmed that she and her husband, state Rep. Matt Maddock, plan to file claims. She justifies using taxpayer funds because they “paid for the prosecution and investigation of the years that I was being hunted down.”

“I want vengeance and I want retribution,” Maddock said.

Trump’s efforts to reframe January 6 as a peaceful demonstration appear to have encouraged many convicted participants.

Johnston’s current willingness to assist other Capitol participants contrasts sharply with his remorseful attitude during his 2022 sentencing. He apologized for his “terrible lapse in judgment” before receiving three weeks in jail and three months of home detention after pleading guilty to misdemeanor trespassing.

“It was a dumb, dumb thing to do,” Johnston told the judge. “I am 100% responsible for what I did that day.”

During a recent NPR interview, Scott Simon spoke with Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, regarding his latest critique of how America handles military conflicts.

The conversation centered on Daalder’s recent public comments questioning the United States’ current strategy and approach to armed conflicts around the world.

WASHINGTON, May 30 – Republican senators return from recess next week confronting a difficult decision: support President Donald Trump’s disputed $1.8 billion fund designed to compensate victims of alleged political targeting, or oppose a leader who recently contributed to ending two GOP senators’ careers.

Approximately half of the 53 Republican senators in the majority expressed reservations during an intense two-hour session with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche before the Memorial Day recess, compelling leadership to postpone voting on a $72 billion bill funding Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts through his term’s conclusion.

As GOP leaders prepare to vote on legislation supporting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol operations, the party is urging Trump’s Justice Department to establish protective measures that might neutralize Democratic strategies to force multiple amendment votes aimed at blocking the fund and embarrassing the administration.

“I would hope that Senate leadership is working with the administration and the Department of Justice to design something that’s going to work,” stated Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin conservative who expresses full support for the fund. “My suggestion was, come up with an overriding amendment that will render all their amendments moot.”

The compensation program, designed to reimburse alleged political targeting victims using public funds, originated from a legal agreement between Trump’s Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service to settle an extraordinary lawsuit where the president sought $10 billion regarding alleged mismanagement of his tax documents.

The proposal sparked intense backlash, with legislators expressing worries about possible conflicts of interest involving Trump and the potential for payments to violent supporters who attacked the U.S. Capitol and assaulted officers on January 6, 2021.

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Friday preventing the administration from proceeding with the fund.

Blanche assured lawmakers privately that the program would exclude Trump family members and anyone with violent crime convictions, according to meeting attendees. However, senators demand written guarantees, along with eligibility criteria, enhanced congressional authority in choosing fund administrators, and judicial supervision.

“What will dictate the next step is whether or not there are 51 Republican senators who believe that it is a satisfactory outcome,” explained a senior Republican aide. “I don’t think every member necessarily is going to find equal satisfaction.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has requested the Justice Department and White House clarify acceptable safeguards for members. Staff report receiving no response thus far.

“The administration appreciated last week’s conversation and feedback,” commented a White House official Friday. “We look forward to additional conversations as needed.” The Justice Department declined to respond to inquiries.

Republican political consultants warn the fund could become a liability approaching November midterm elections, where the party already confronts challenges from rising consumer costs, an unpopular conflict with Iran, and Trump’s diminishing approval numbers among Republicans.

“No one thinks this is a winning issue, even those in safe Republican House and Senate seats that don’t usually have to worry about an election. Even those folks want no part of this,” said a Republican strategist requesting anonymity due to involvement in important congressional campaigns.

Legislators have shown reluctance to challenge the matter following Trump’s involvement in primary losses for Republican Senators John Cornyn and Bill Cassidy.

Johnson criticized the Justice Department for publicly announcing the fund while the Senate prepared to review the ICE funding legislation.

“To me, this whole thing was completely blown by announcing it. These things are better just done using the authority that Congress has given,” Johnson commented. “The timing was atrocious.”

The dispute has reignited 2020 election grievances.

James Troupis, a former Trump campaign lawyer facing felony charges for his alleged involvement in a fraudulent 2020 elector scheme in Wisconsin, filed this week for $3.2 million compensation, claiming reputation damage and $1.7 million in expenses from representing Trump.

Vice President JD Vance indicated former Colorado elections clerk Tina Peters might qualify for compensation after her conviction for illegally accessing voting equipment while pursuing false 2020 election fraud claims.

Several Republicans in both chambers have demanded congressional supervision, reflecting remarks to media by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley.

“Congress needs to have an oversight role in this before I can sign off or support this,” Republican Representative Mike Flood told constituents during a Norfolk, Nebraska town hall.

“I have concerns about the weaponization fund,” Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, among the most vulnerable House Republicans, told the Des Moines Register.

“We need to know more information. We need to have oversight. We need to know who determines it, where it goes,” the Iowa Republican explained. “Right now, I have more questions than I have answers.”

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California’s tumultuous gubernatorial contest neared its conclusion Saturday as top contenders worked frantically to make their final appeals ahead of Tuesday’s voting deadline.

Xavier Becerra, who previously served as U.S. health secretary, has championed what he calls “hot competence summer,” highlighting his extensive decades in public service as proof he possesses the necessary skills to lead California.

During comments made outside the state Capitol on Wednesday, Republican Steve Hilton promised to eliminate what he described as a “bloated, nanny-state bureaucracy.”

Tom Steyer, a billionaire environmental advocate, informed reporters this week in Berkeley that advancing progressive policies has become his life’s mission, which he plans to continue in Sacramento.

These candidates are working to distinguish themselves among approximately 60 contenders appearing on one ballot, with no party distinctions, under California’s top-two primary format. The pair receiving the highest vote totals will compete in the general election to succeed Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who cannot pursue a third term.

The packed field features Democrats Becerra, Steyer, former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, and Matt Mahan, the mayor of San Jose. Hilton, a former Fox News host with President Donald Trump’s backing, and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco represent the most notable Republican contenders.

By Friday afternoon, 13% of voters had submitted their ballots. This included 13% of Democrats and 18% of Republicans, based on tracking data from Democratic strategist Paul Mitchell. The pattern differs from recent years when Democrats typically voted early while many Republicans waited until Election Day.

Several Democrats have delayed voting to see if any candidate emerges as a clear frontrunner in the closing days, or due to dissatisfaction with the extensive candidate list.

Polling conducted in mid-to-late May indicated that Becerra and Hilton each garnered support from approximately 2 in 10 California likely voters. One survey showed Steyer performing closer to Becerra and Hilton, with Bianco and Porter further back, while another poll showed similar support levels for Steyer, Bianco, and Porter. No other candidates reached double-digit support in either survey.

The hopefuls have crisscrossed the state, which contains roughly 23 million registered voters, seeking advantages over their competitors. Becerra, Hilton, Steyer and Bianco will all campaign in the San Francisco Bay Area this weekend. Fresno and Los Angeles have also drawn frequent campaign visits.

Becerra has emphasized his more than 35 years serving in state and federal positions.

“This is not a place for on-the-job training,” he stated during a podcast with political commentator Ana Navarro. “You better know what you’re doing.”

His weekend schedule includes a text-banking event with Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta in San Francisco and a rally with the Service Employees International Union in San Jose.

Hilton has positioned himself as someone offering fresh perspectives on state government, promising to reduce regulations while lowering housing and energy expenses. He believes this message will unite voters, he explained to reporters this week in Sacramento.

“It’s not ideological,” Hilton stated. “It’s just simple, practical commonsense — $3 gas, cut your electric bills in half.”

Hilton plans to conduct a town hall in Silicon Valley Saturday night. He has avoided emphasizing Trump’s endorsement. Should he reach the November election, he’ll need support from voters beyond his party to succeed in the Democrat-heavy state that last elected a Republican governor in 2011.

Steyer, who calls himself a “billionaire who wants to tax other billionaires,” characterized the race as a three-way competition between himself, Hilton and Becerra.

“There is a hard-right Republican who’s endorsed by Donald Trump,” he addressed supporters at a Berkeley sports bar.

“The second candidate is Xavier Becerra, who, to my surprise, is a corporate Democrat,” Steyer added, citing his acceptance of campaign money from Chevron.

“And the third person’s me,” he continued. “And I am running because Californians can’t afford to live here anymore.”

Steyer plans to attend a campaign rally Saturday in San Francisco to sharpen his voter outreach.

Meanwhile, Mahan will meet with voters in Los Angeles, Porter will deliver remarks in Orange County, and Bianco will present his platform at a San Jose church.

A former mayor in Southern California has admitted to federal charges of acting as an illegal agent for China’s government, sparking worries about foreign interference and potential discrimination against Asian American residents.

Eileen Wang, who previously served as mayor of Arcadia, entered her guilty plea in federal court Friday. Her case has become a source of controversy in the community, where some fear it could lead to unfair targeting of Chinese and Asian American populations.

The city of Arcadia made history in 2024 when voters chose the first entirely Asian city council in its past. The San Gabriel Valley community has experienced dramatic population shifts over the past twenty years as people from China, Taiwan and Hong Kong have moved to the area east of Los Angeles.

Following the public disclosure of Wang’s case on May 11, the story gained widespread media attention and created tension within the quiet suburban community. Social media discussions centered on concerns about espionage and influence from the Chinese Communist Party.

“We cannot allow this moment to become an excuse for people to paint entire communities with one brush or weaponize ethnicity for political gain,” acting Mayor Paul Cheng said in a statement.

Court documents show Wang admitted to working on behalf of Chinese officials by publishing pro-Beijing content on a news website she operated, without properly registering with U.S. authorities as the law requires.

The 56-year-old politician won election to the five-member City Council in November 2022, with the mayoral position rotating among members. Wang was born in Chengdu, China, and came to America in 1995.

The San Gabriel Valley hosts the nation’s largest population of Chinese and Taiwanese residents. Starting in the 1970s, property developers promoted the area as “Chinese Beverly Hills” to attract wealthy immigrants. The growing community became a destination where newcomers could conduct daily life in Chinese, find business opportunities, and provide their children alternatives to China’s highly competitive school system. Arcadia’s roughly 53,000 residents are predominantly Asian, similar to neighboring communities.

Ted Tseng, 52, moved to Arcadia from Taiwan nearly four decades ago with his family, who left due to worries about possible conflict between Taiwan and China.

Tseng expressed concern that Wang’s charges could increase hostility toward Asian Americans and undermine their positive contributions to the area. Anxiety about anti-Asian prejudice persists, even though hate crimes have decreased since the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I’m just worried our image has been damaged,” Tseng said.

Federal authorities have intensified their efforts recently to counter Chinese espionage activities. In April, a defendant accused of operating a covert Chinese intelligence post in Manhattan’s Chinatown was found guilty of illegal foreign agent activities.

Wang has indicated she was deceived by her former fiance, Yaoning “Mike” Sun, who admitted to identical charges last year and is currently serving four years in prison. Sun handled finances for Wang’s 2022 campaign.

A statement from Wang’s legal team mentions her “trust and love for apparently the wrong person who ultimately led her astray.”

April Verlato, a previous City Council member who worked alongside Wang, noted that Wang and Sun shared a residence, and Sun regularly accompanied Wang to events.

Verlato believes Wang should have resigned immediately when the investigation began.

“She was being selfish, getting sworn in as mayor and not resigning when she knew she was going to be pleading guilty to something,” Verlato said.

Gene Sun, a longtime attorney in Arcadia, shared similar views.

“I don’t understand how she could have continued being a City Council member,” he said.

Given rising political tensions and economic competition between China and the United States in recent years, Chinese government attempts to exert political influence in the region are not unexpected, according to Wei Li, a professor of Asian Pacific American Studies at Arizona State University.

“A lot of countries, if they have the will and if they have the means, will try to influence their diaspora,” Li said.

Federal court records indicate Sun communicated with John Chen, who also pleaded guilty to serving as an unregistered Chinese agent, about local politicians Beijing might influence. In their reports to Chinese authorities, Sun and Chen described Wang as a “New Political Star” and highlighted her connections with mainstream U.S. politicians.

Their communications also discussed opposing “anti-China forces” including Taiwan independence advocates and the Falun Gong, an exiled anti-communist spiritual movement.

In a January 2023 message from Chen to Wang mentioned in Sun’s criminal complaint, Chen said: “You are doing a good job, I hope you can continue the good work, make Chinese people proud.”

Acting mayor Cheng described the news of her guilty plea as a “slap in the face,” and said community reactions have also been hurtful.

During a May 19 City Council meeting, some residents criticized remaining council members for allowing Wang’s actions and demanded their resignations.

“I’ve been called more names, been told to go back to China although that’s not where I’m from,” said Cheng, who arrived in the U.S. from Taiwan at age 2.

For many Arcadia residents and employees, daily routines continued normally after the news emerged. Many offered apologetic smiles when questioned about the situation, explaining they don’t follow politics closely.

Aliza Mo, who moved from China six years ago for her children’s schooling, initially thought the news reports must be overstated.

“A lot of people wondered if it was discrimination,” she said.

After learning the details of Wang’s admission, she reconsidered her position.

“I think it would be improper for anyone to be doing something like that,” she said.

AMES, Iowa (AP) — Democratic voters in Iowa are struggling to choose between two candidates in Tuesday’s U.S. Senate primary, with many focused on selecting whoever has the strongest chance of defeating the Republican incumbent this fall.

The challenge is that many voters can’t determine which of the two state legislators running would be the stronger general election candidate.

“I am having a lot of trouble,” said Mike Lazere, a 65-year-old Democrat who always votes on Election Day.

State Rep. Josh Turek and state Sen. Zach Wahls are competing for the Democratic nomination to challenge the seat currently occupied by retiring Sen. Joni Ernst in a state where the GOP holds advantages but Democrats believe they might have an opportunity.

The primary decision carries significant weight for Iowa’s Democratic voters, who lack recent examples of winning statewide candidates to inform their choice. The most recent Democrat to capture federal office statewide was President Barack Obama in 2012. Republicans hold all six federal delegation seats, and the GOP has controlled the statehouse for nearly ten years. The state’s last Democratic U.S. senator, Tom Harkin, won election in 2008 and stepped down six years later.

U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson is seeking the GOP nomination, and a Republican-aligned political group has already committed $29 million to protect the seat.

While Turek and Wahls claim their differences are obvious, voters who remain undecided see things differently.

“They both have strong legislative records. They both have compelling stories. I think they both share my values,” Lazere said Thursday outside of the Ames public library, where Story County Democrats had just held their monthly meeting.

“Since they’re so close, I just want the candidate who is more likely to have a chance,” he said. “It’s an uphill battle, probably, in Iowa still.”

At the Des Moines Farmers’ Market last weekend, where both candidates moved through the crowds, Sundie Ruppert voiced her support for Turek as he walked past her tent, declaring he had her vote.

Ruppert described the race as an “embarrassment of riches,” something that’s been uncommon recently. She said the two candidates support “virtually everything the same,” so for her, the question is who can attract crossover support to win in November.

Turek, a four-time wheelchair basketball Paralympian born with spina bifida, believes his story of overcoming challenges and his political positions will attract independent and moderate Republican voters. He represents a state House district that supported President Donald Trump.

Turek said he’s concentrated on securing a livable wage, health care access and drinkable water, not the culture-war issues that he said Republicans use to distract voters from the core problems they are facing.

“I’m not gonna get dragged down the rabbit hole of worrying about these distraction issues,” Turek said in an interview.

“I think that if we are going to win again in a state like Iowa, it is going be a message of economic populism,” he said. “It is going to be that we as a Democratic Party stand for the workers and for the middle class. That’s the way forward.”

Ruppert said she believes general election voters are more likely to support Turek, even if they “have to hold their nose.”

“We’ve got to get the independents,” she said. “I do believe that Josh in a red district has better pull than Wahls.”

About 37 miles (60 kilometers) north in Ames on Thursday, Shellie Orngard said she’s heard that reasoning and remains unconvinced.

Orngard said both are good people and strong candidates, but Wahls strikes her as “somebody with real character behind his convictions.”

“I think that whether you’re Democrat or Republican or independent, you appreciate authenticity and real values,” Orngard said. “I think Zach Wahls just seems to have the character that I feel he’s the person that I want to put my vote behind.”

Wahls says he’s the candidate willing to defy leadership in both parties, and he has criticized Turek for not rejecting Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer as caucus leader.

He says his anti-establishment message is winning back the working-class voters, especially common across eastern Iowa, who supported Obama before they pivoted to Trump.

“We’re not just talking about building a coalition that can win in November, we are already doing it,” he said. “These are voters who are not hardcore MAGA Trump Republicans. A lot of them are just really frustrated with both parties, they don’t trust Washington, they don’t trust the establishment.”

“And what we hear from people all the time is, ‘Even if we don’t agree on every issue, if you are willing to take them on, you’ve got my vote,’” Wahls said.

Iowa has changed dramatically since Obama’s victory in 2012, supporting Trump in the last three presidential elections. Democrats trail Republicans by roughly 200,000 registered voters statewide.

Rob Sand, state auditor and candidate for governor, was the only Democrat to win statewide in 2022.

Nearly 30,000 Democrats have already cast their ballots as of Friday, according to data from the secretary of state’s office. Still, in Ellston on Wednesday, many of the two dozen southwest Iowa Democrats waiting to hear from Turek said they’d rely on a gut feeling.

“As far as I’m concerned, Ashley Hinson has got to be beat,” said Lynne Wallace, a 67-year-old from Mount Ayr. The committed Democrat said she’d support either candidate in the general election, already eager to make calls and knock on doors, but added that she’s got “shaky faith” that either Democrat can pull it off.

Lois Rose, 77, and her 79-year-old husband, John, said at the Des Moines farmers’ market that they might not vote in the primary at all since they, so far, hadn’t been able to make up their minds on whether one candidate is stronger than the other.

She suggested the pair could also coordinate their votes, each casting a ballot for one of the two. John liked the idea.

“They’re both so qualified,” said Lois Rose of West Des Moines. “They’re both very genuine, hence the difficulty.”

The White House issued a statement Friday declaring that U.S. President Donald Trump maintains excellent health, with robust heart, lung, brain and general physical functioning, according to a medical evaluation conducted earlier this week.

Following his Tuesday appointment at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, marking his third visit there in just over a year, Trump stated that “everything checked out perfectly.”

As the oldest individual to take the presidential oath, Trump regularly portrays himself as having more vigor and better physical condition than Joe Biden, his Democratic predecessor, who concluded his term last year at 82 years old amid concerns regarding his capability to serve.

However, recent photos displaying a patchy rash on his neck have sparked additional concerns about Trump’s wellbeing, coming after July 2025 images revealed swollen ankles and what appeared to be a bruised hand covered with cosmetics.

The president’s doctor has declared Donald Trump to be in outstanding health and completely capable of fulfilling his presidential responsibilities following a comprehensive medical examination conducted this week at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

Dr. Sean Barbabella issued a report late Friday detailing that Trump received extensive testing including heart scans, CT imaging, cancer screenings, and additional preventive evaluations performed by a team of 22 medical specialists.

The 79-year-old president commented following Tuesday’s medical visit that all results came back “PERFECTLY.”

Medical records show Trump’s weight at 238 pounds (108 kilograms), representing a 14-pound (6 kg) increase since his previous examination in April 2025. While his medical team provided recommendations regarding nutrition, exercise, and weight management, they determined his “cognitive and physical performance are excellent.”

A federal appeals court ruling on Friday has enabled Texas to move forward with implementing significant portions of legislation that grants state authorities the power to detain and remove individuals believed to have entered the country illegally through the U.S.-Mexico border.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, located in New Orleans, issued a 2-1 decision that suspended a court order blocking the law. That original injunction had been put in place on May 14 following a class-action case brought by civil rights organizations representing thousands of individuals who might face consequences under the legislation.

U.S. District Judge David Ezra, based in Austin, had previously blocked the state law after determining it inappropriately interfered with federal authority over immigration, citizenship processes, and deportation procedures.

Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for a seat in the U.S. Senate, promptly challenged the injunction, resulting in Friday’s appellate decision.

Organizations representing those affected by the law — including the American Civil Liberties Union, its Texas branch, and the Texas Civil Rights Project — released a joint statement expressing disappointment with the court’s decision and stated they “will continue to fight against this abhorrent and blatantly illegal law.”

Paxton’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The legal challenge was initiated to block sections of the 2023 legislation from being implemented, following an April appeals court decision that reversed an earlier restraining order from Democratic President Joe Biden’s tenure that had prevented the Republican-supported measure, designated as SB 4, from going into effect.

Republican President Donald Trump’s administration had abandoned a legal challenge that the Biden administration had pursued against the law. Immigration advocacy organizations that had also filed suit continued their efforts, but the 5th Circuit ruled 10-7 that these groups did not have proper legal standing to continue their case.

The recent ACLU-supported legal action attempted to resolve this issue by filing suit on behalf of non-citizens who might be affected by four specific sections of the legislation.

These sections include measures that establish state-level criminal penalties for individuals who reenter the United States following deportation, regardless of whether they possess federal authorization or have subsequently received permanent resident status, and provisions that authorize Texas magistrate judges to issue removal orders.

Federal prosecutors are calling for a judge to step down from a Georgia voting case following her involvement in a judicial misconduct scandal.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed the recusal request on Friday, one week after a federal judicial panel confirmed a private reprimand against an unidentified judge for engaging in sexual conduct with a senior police official in her courtroom chambers while law clerks could hear.

While the judicial misconduct orders didn’t name the judge publicly, the Justice Department referenced media reports identifying the official as U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross in Atlanta, who is overseeing the voter registration case.

According to a February ruling from the 11th Circuit Judicial Council, the judge conducted an extramarital relationship and engaged in sexual activity with the officer. The judge also participated in a political campaign celebration for an unspecified district attorney.

Federal prosecutors identified that district attorney as Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, “who rose to nationwide fame for her failed prosecution of President Trump for alleged crimes related to the 2020 election.”

The department argued that if Ross, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, is indeed the judge referenced in the misconduct proceedings, she should recuse herself because her attendance at the Willis event creates an appearance of prejudice.

“A judge who attended a party celebrating the election of a Democrat best known for prosecuting a Republican President for alleged election interference cannot then preside over a case concerning that President’s efforts to ensure election integrity,” Justice Department lawyers wrote.

The judge’s court hasn’t responded to requests for comment. Ross, who was scheduled to hear arguments in the department’s lawsuit Wednesday, has previously declined through her court to discuss the misconduct case.

Willis, whose office hasn’t commented on the misconduct proceedings, filed charges in 2023 against now-President Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants for what she described as a comprehensive criminal plot to reverse Georgia’s 2020 election outcomes after Trump lost his reelection campaign to Democrat Joe Biden.

A court of appeals removed Willis, an elected Democrat in Atlanta, from the case in 2024. The court determined she had created an “appearance of impropriety” through a romantic involvement with the special prosecutor she had appointed to handle the case.

After her removal, the case was dropped in 2025 following Trump’s return to the White House by another prosecutor who assumed control.

Former President Donald Trump announced his support for two Republican candidates seeking their party’s gubernatorial nominations on Friday, inserting himself into competitive races in South Carolina and Iowa where multiple allies had been vying for his endorsement.

Through social media announcements, Trump threw his weight behind South Carolina Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and Iowa Rep. Randy Feenstra as both states gear up for their upcoming primary contests.

Voters in Iowa head to the polls Tuesday, while South Carolina’s primary is scheduled for June 9.

Evette has worked as lieutenant governor for two terms under Gov. Henry McMaster, who was among Trump’s first supporters during his initial White House campaign. McMaster endorsed his second-in-command earlier this year, signaling to observers that Trump’s support might follow.

In his Friday announcement, Trump praised both Evette and the state she serves, highlighting that she campaigned for him in 2024. He described “A BIG added plus” for her candidacy as the possibility that Henry McMaster Jr. — the current governor’s son — could join her ticket as running mate.

The battle for the former president’s endorsement has dominated the primary campaign in the solidly Republican state of South Carolina.

In his separate statement about Feenstra, Trump called him “MAGA all the way” and predicted he would “fight tirelessly” for the state on matters including economic issues, border security and backing law enforcement.

Both candidates had actively sought Trump’s endorsement, believing it could prove decisive in states that helped secure Trump’s 2024 electoral victory. Feenstra publicly stated earlier this year that he had requested Trump’s support, while Evette’s campaign materials have prominently displayed photographs of her alongside Trump.

Feenstra faces four other Republicans in his primary race — state Rep. Eddie Andrews, businessman and former conservative political director Zach Lahn, former state Rep. Brad Sherman and former director of the state Department of Administrative Services Adam Steen — as they compete to succeed outgoing Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, who decided against seeking a third term.

In South Carolina, Evette is running against Rep. Nancy Mace, Rep. Ralph Norman and state Attorney General Alan Wilson for the Republican nomination.

Both states are experiencing their first contested Republican gubernatorial primaries in several years, as Reynolds and McMaster have each held office for approximately ten years.

The White House announced Friday that U.S. President Donald Trump has issued an executive order designed to eliminate barriers that currently limit public access to federally-owned lands.

The directive is focused on reducing existing limitations that restrict how the public can use federal property, according to the White House statement released on May 29.

A financial expert weighs in on President Trump’s efforts to secure his likeness on a proposed $250 denomination currency note.

NPR’s Sacha Pfeiffer conducted an interview with financial historian Brendan Greeley regarding the president’s campaign to appear on this new bill design.

A financial historian recently discussed President Trump’s efforts to secure his placement on a proposed $250 currency note.

Brendan Greeley, who specializes in financial history, spoke with NPR’s Sacha Pfeiffer about the president’s campaign to appear on the new denomination bill.

The conversation explored the president’s initiative to be represented on what would be a new addition to American currency.

New Jersey’s governor is deploying state police to restore order at a Newark immigration detention facility where violent confrontations and arrests have occurred over several days.

The Democrat made the announcement Friday that officers will establish designated demonstration areas and implement vehicle checkpoints to control traffic flow around Delaney Hall. The governor explained that confrontations between demonstrators and federal immigration enforcement agents have escalated.

“It has grown unsafe, and that’s completely unacceptable,” Sherrill said at a news conference along with the state attorney general and state police leaders. “Our top priority is public safety, and we need to take this opportunity to lower the temperature.”

Representatives from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the GEO Group, the private company operating the facility under contract, did not immediately return requests for comment.

The demonstrations started last Friday following reports from immigrant advocacy groups that detainees had begun a hunger strike protesting substandard living conditions at the 1,000-bed facility, which began operations last May.

Protesters have worked to prevent people and vehicles from accessing the building entrance in recent days. They have formed human chains by linking arms and constructed makeshift barriers using trash containers, umbrellas and other items.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers wearing helmets and tactical gear have deployed pepper spray and batons in efforts to scatter protesters and keep roadways clear for vehicle access.

DHS reported that at least six demonstrators faced arrest for assaulting law enforcement officers Wednesday night, with additional arrests occurring during other protest nights.

With state police assuming public safety duties outside Delaney Hall, ICE officers currently positioned at the entrance have agreed to step back, according to Sherril and state officials.

Along with establishing protest zones, the governor said officers will implement vehicle checkpoints to manage traffic flow and ensure safe passage.

Sherril emphasized her concern about providing ICE with justification to expand operations in the state by allowing the situation to spiral out of control.

“We know what ICE has done in other states, and we know American citizens lost their lives, and I refuse to let that happen in New Jersey,” the governor said. “We all need to do everything we can to cool things down now.”

Sherrill was part of a group of Democratic officials who attempted to visit detainees on Monday but were refused access.

Democratic members of Congress from New York City, however, were able to tour Delaney Hall Tuesday and described dire conditions where detainees are fed small portions of often spoiled food and their varied medical needs are ignored.

The families of detainees and their supporters, meanwhile, say their loved ones have been subjected to pepper spray and physical force in retaliation for their hunger strike and the protests outside.

WASHINGTON — Federal financial regulators announced Friday their intention to eliminate regulations requiring certain publicly traded companies to disclose greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks, marking another step in dismantling environmental policies from the previous administration.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s climate reporting regulation has remained suspended since last year, when the Republican-controlled commission halted its legal defense amid court challenges from business organizations and Republican state attorneys general.

In an official statement, the SEC declared its intention to eliminate the disclosure regulations “in their entirety because they exceed the scope of the agency’s statutory authority.” The agency argued that the regulations, which became final in 2024, “impose substantial costs on public companies and their shareholders that are not justified by the informational benefits they may provide to some investors.”

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins stated that removing the regulation would “avoid the practical effect of dictating corporate behavior” and ensure agency rules would “be imposed only when the expected benefits justify the likely costs and burdens.”

Environmental advocacy organizations criticized the move, arguing it would deprive investors of crucial information needed to evaluate financial risks and other climate-related dangers.

“The SEC’s mission is to protect investors and the public by ensuring they have access to material information,” said Kathy Fallon, director of land systems at the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force. “While imperfect, the rule was an important step toward giving investors consistent information about financially material climate risks, including the use of carbon offsets.”

Fallon called on the commission to maintain the regulation and enforce disclosure requirements “that give both investors and the public the transparency they need.”

The elimination of the climate disclosure regulation represents one of numerous environmental policy reversals during President Donald Trump’s second administration. The Environmental Protection Agency has dismantled significant climate change initiatives, advanced deregulatory measures that Trump describes as the most extensive in American history, and terminated billions of dollars in environmental justice funding from the previous administration.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has concentrated on weakening or removing regulations considered climate-friendly, including withdrawing a scientific determination that has served as the foundation for U.S. greenhouse gas regulation and climate change action.

Zeldin has stated his actions will put a “dagger through the heart of climate change religion.”

The SEC, an independent agency with presidential appointees, approved the climate regulation in March 2024 in a partisan decision. Three Democratic commissioners voted in favor while two Republicans voted against.

The commission now consists of three Republican members, including Atkins, with no Democratic representation.

The 2024 regulation was among the most closely watched recent proposals from the nation’s primary financial regulatory body, generating over 24,000 public comments from corporations, auditors, lawmakers and industry organizations during a two-year development process. The approval moved the United States toward alignment with the European Union and states like California, which have established comparable corporate disclosure requirements.

A 60-day public comment period will begin once the proposal appears in the Federal Register, anticipated within days.

WASHINGTON — A federal court delivered a significant legal blow to President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape Washington landmarks, ruling Friday that his administration illegally placed his name on the Kennedy Center and preventing planned facility closures for major construction work.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper determined that the Kennedy Center board’s March 16 decision to shut down the venue was “ill-informed and seemingly preordained” without proper consideration of legal requirements. The planned construction was set to start in July and continue for roughly two years, but Cooper’s decision stops those efforts immediately.

“The trustees might have assessed the propriety of closure in a number of prudent ways. This was not one,” he wrote.

The judge further determined that board members “overstepped its statutory bounds” when they independently decided to attach Trump’s name to the facility. Since Congress originally designated the Kennedy Center’s name, only Congress has authority to alter it, Cooper stated.

Cooper, who received his judicial appointment from Democratic President Barack Obama, directed defendants to strip Trump’s name from the building’s exterior and all “official materials,” including digital and physical signage, within a two-week timeframe.

“May the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts be renamed absent Congressional authorization? The answer, plain from the face of the statute, is no. Nor can any other individual be memorialized on the front portico of the building,” Cooper wrote.

The White House had no immediate comment.

During his current presidential term, Trump has prioritized placing his personal influence on Washington’s most significant historical locations. He tore down the White House East Wing for ballroom construction. His name or likeness now appear on various government facilities, including the U.S. Institute of Peace and Justice Department headquarters. He’s also advocating for a triumphal arch with views of the Potomac River.

Legal challenges to other Trump building initiatives have emerged in courts — with favorable outcomes for opponents. However, district court decisions may not be final as the administration pursues appeals.

Roma Daravi, the Kennedy Center’s vice president of public relations, stated Friday that the organization remains “confident that on appeal the court will uphold the Board’s will to recognize President Trump’s historic contributions to our nation’s cultural center.” She indicated the ruling would receive “careful” review.

“Though the reality remains — the Center requires an urgent and significant restoration – a truth that even the plaintiff acknowledges,” Daravi said. “With $257 million secured by President Trump and approved by Congress, the resources are in place and we remain committed to pursuing every lawful avenue to ensure the Trump Kennedy Center is restored as a national cultural landmark for all Americans to enjoy.”

Cooper conducted hearings in late April for two separate lawsuits challenging the construction plans. Cultural and historic preservation organizations filed one case. The other came from Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat serving as an ex officio Kennedy Center board member. He sided with Beatty’s petition while dismissing the alternative challenge.

Beatty described the ruling as a victory for the Kennedy Center and performing arts community. “Now hopefully people can come back to work, we can continue to be the Kennedy Center that we were intended to be,” she told The Associated Press.

Justice Department lawyers argued that building renovation plans remain limited in scope and fall entirely within board authority without requiring external approvals.

Plaintiffs expressed concerns that the president and his board supporters would ignore preservation regulations meant to protect the building’s historical integrity. During previous court proceedings, lawyers representing Beatty and preservation organizations questioned the project’s claimed limited scope, citing Trump’s comments about “fully exposing” the building’s steel framework.

Beatty expressed being “very fearful that we’ll see what happened with the East Wing and what happened with the Rose Garden” if the center closes and renovations proceed without oversight, referencing substantial modifications the president implemented at the White House.

Mike Floca, the Kennedy Center’s executive director and chief operating officer, dedicated several spring weeks guiding bipartisan congressional members and staff, plus journalists and Washington municipal officials, through the massive building spanning 1.5 million square feet.

These tours aimed to demonstrate that the Kennedy Center, with construction beginning in 1965, genuinely required comprehensive updates. The guided visits revealed extensive water damage, visible through discoloration and standing water in certain areas. Various equipment pieces, including multiple 800-ton cooling chillers, are decades old and need replacement.

Floca informed reporters in April that he evaluated completing repairs separately but maintained it was his recommendation to Trump to close the facility and proceed with comprehensive renovation work simultaneously.

Trump, a Republican, has shown strong interest in Kennedy Center management since returning to the White House last year. He established a personally selected board that designated him as chairman. His name was placed on the exterior of a building regarded as a living memorial to Kennedy.

The Kennedy Center has continued hosting performances before the planned closure, though at a significantly reduced schedule compared to previous years. Trump attended the “Chicago” musical premiere in March, and additional productions, including “Moulin Rouge,” are scheduled for June.

Bill Maher, the comedian with a complicated relationship with Trump, is set to receive the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor on June 28, an occasion expected to serve as one of the Kennedy Center’s final major events before the planned closure.

A financial historian recently discussed President Trump’s efforts to have his likeness featured on a proposed new $250 bill during a radio conversation.

Brendan Greeley, who specializes in financial history, spoke with NPR’s Sacha Pfeiffer about the president’s campaign to secure a spot on the potential new currency denomination.

The discussion covered Trump’s advocacy for being included on what would be a new addition to American paper money if the $250 bill moves forward.

CONCORD, N.H. — A federal court has ordered New Hampshire to ease its voter registration process by permitting applicants to use sworn statements declaring their U.S. citizenship when they cannot provide required documentation.

The legal challenge marked the first significant court test of voting reforms championed nationally by President Donald Trump and embraced by numerous Republicans. U.S. District Court Judge Samantha Elliot clarified she wasn’t ruling on whether citizenship proof requirements are constitutional overall. However, her Thursday night decision on specific New Hampshire statutes highlighted potential problems with implementing rigid documentation demands for voters to verify their U.S. citizenship before casting ballots.

Elliot determined that 2024 modifications to the state’s voter registration statute unconstitutionally eliminated one verification method — specifically, sworn affidavits where voters attest to their citizenship status.

“The evidence shows that this is the only method of proof available to a significant number of New Hampshire voters,” she wrote.

The modifications became effective last year after former Gov. Chris Sununu, a Republican, signed the legislation two years prior. The attorney general’s office announced plans to challenge the judge’s decision, describing the citizenship requirements as a “common-sense approach to voter registration and election administration designed to protect the integrity of our elections.”

The decision represented a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire and additional plaintiffs who contended the modifications that became effective last year created unnecessary obstacles.

“New Hampshire’s elections have always been safe, secure, and accurate — and this law could have unconstitutionally and needlessly prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting a ballot,” said Henry Klementowicz, deputy legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire.

The legal action, brought on behalf of the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the Forward Foundation and five voters, characterized the state’s voter registration statute as among the nation’s most restrictive. During municipal elections last fall, some voters encountered difficulties obtaining passports, birth certificates or alternative citizenship documentation.

New Hampshire joins other states with citizenship verification laws for voters. Arizona, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming have comparable statutes currently in place, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Florida enacted legislation this year mandating documentary citizenship proof for voting, though implementation is delayed until next year.

A comparable Kansas statute requiring citizenship proof for state and federal elections was determined in 2018 to violate both the U.S. Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act after blocking more than 31,000 citizens from voter registration.

Arizona created a dual-tier system following a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision preventing the state from mandating citizenship documentation for federal elections. In August 2024, the court permitted certain portions of the state’s citizenship proof statute to remain enforced while legal challenges continued in lower courts.

The decision arrives as Trump promotes a citizenship proof measure, the SAVE America Act, through Congress. Voting rights advocates warn such federal mandates could disenfranchise millions of people. A 2025 University of Maryland study calculated that 21.3 million Americans eligible to vote lack or cannot easily access documents proving their citizenship, including nearly 10% of Democrats, 7% of Republicans and 14% of people unaffiliated with either major party.

A federal judge has mandated the removal of President Donald Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, determining that the renowned Washington performing arts venue cannot undergo a name change without congressional authorization.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper issued the ruling on Friday, instructing the Trump administration to remove all physical signs displaying Trump’s name and eliminate any mention of a “Trump Kennedy Center” from official documents within a two-week timeframe.

The decision comes after the administration attempted to rename the famous Washington cultural institution.

Louisiana’s Republican lawmakers have given final approval to a congressional redistricting plan that eliminates a Democratic-controlled district where Black voters make up the majority, potentially helping the GOP maintain control of the U.S. House in this year’s November elections.

The state has become part of a broader trend among Republican-controlled Southern states that have moved quickly to dismantle Democratic districts with substantial Black voter populations following an April U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly reduced legal safeguards for such constituencies.

After clearing the state House of Representatives on Thursday, the redistricting plan received Senate approval Friday by a 28-10 margin, with voting following party affiliations. The legislation will now head to Republican Governor Jeff Landry’s desk, where he is anticipated to sign it into law.

Currently, Republicans control four out of the state’s six congressional districts under a redistricting plan created in 2024 following a court mandate that required establishing a second district with either a Black majority or near-majority population, as required by federal Voting Rights Act provisions. Black Democratic representatives currently serve both districts that contain substantial Black voter populations.

However, the Supreme Court invalidated the 2024 redistricting plan, declaring it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. This decision created opportunities for Louisiana and other states to challenge majority-minority districts that had previously been protected by stronger legal safeguards.

Governor Landry delayed the May 16 U.S. House primary elections to allow legislators sufficient time to create the new redistricting plan, which dismantles Democratic U.S. Representative Cleo Fields’ district centered in Baton Rouge. When Landry issued his postponement order, thousands of mail-in ballots had already been submitted, prompting voting rights advocates to express concerns about voter confusion and electoral disruption.

Democratic legislators have condemned the redistricting plan as an attempt to suppress Black voting power, while Republican supporters maintain they drew district boundaries based purely on partisan considerations rather than racial factors.

This surge of Southern redistricting initiatives represents the most recent battleground in a nationwide redistricting conflict that began last summer when President Donald Trump encouraged Texas Republicans to redraw their state’s congressional boundaries to challenge sitting Democratic representatives.

Republicans have gained the upper hand in redistricting battles, securing advantages in potentially 10 seats while legal challenges remain pending.

However, Democrats continue to be well-positioned to win a U.S. House majority this November given Trump’s declining approval numbers and voter dissatisfaction with increasing living costs.

President Donald Trump declared on his Truth Social platform Wednesday that he is “MAKING FOOD AFFORDABLE,” highlighting price decreases for various grocery items including avocados, fresh berries, and pantry essentials. However, the Labor Department had reported just two weeks prior that grocery prices climbed nearly 3% in April compared to the previous year.

While the president’s graphic may accurately reflect the specific products he mentioned, verification proves difficult since he referenced non-public data without specifying the timeframe used.

Individual grocery items regularly fluctuate in price, but the president’s message overlooks the wider situation shoppers encounter: Food costs have generally increased since his inauguration at a rate exceeding pre-pandemic norms. Economic experts anticipate continued price growth in upcoming months as rising diesel fuel costs drive up grocery transportation expenses nationwide.

April’s grocery price increases marked the steepest climb in two and a half years. The 2.9% rise slightly exceeds the 20-year average of 2.6%, though grocery prices averaged only 1.1% annual increases in the decade preceding the pandemic.

These increases follow much more dramatic price surges during 2021-22 under former president Joe Biden. Grocery expenses jumped nearly 28% from February 2020, just before the pandemic, through Trump’s January 2025 inauguration.

The president’s social media message concentrated on nine particular products rather than examining comprehensive grocery expenses. He reported avocado prices dropping 19%, cheese declining 5.6%, fresh berries and butter falling 13%, olive oil decreasing 16%, chicken breasts down 2.4%, and eggs plummeting 90%.

The president’s data came from Circana, a private firm, as published through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Neither Circana nor USDA had responded to Associated Press inquiries by deadline. The White House similarly did not reply to requests for comment regarding the post.

Many of the president’s numbers align roughly with the government’s consumer price index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the primary inflation measurement tool. That data indicates cheese prices fell 3.1% in April year-over-year. Egg prices dropped 39% from the previous year and 60% from their March 2025 peak, falling short of the president’s 90% assertion.

Several items the president mentioned became cheaper due to factors largely unrelated to broader economic patterns. Egg prices declined because chicken populations rebounded after avian flu devastation, partly aided by the Trump administration permitting nearly 1 billion egg imports last year.

Olive oil costs decreased recently as production recovered following a two-year drought period.

According to the consumer price index, chicken breasts cost an average $4.17 per pound in April, up from $3.97 at the president’s inauguration. Nevertheless, chicken breast prices have dropped 0.3% from the previous year. Butter prices have fallen 5.8% over the past year, according to BLS data.

However, the president omitted all items experiencing price increases that keep grocery costs high. Multiple factors drive up food expenses, including the president’s own policies: His tariffs have increased costs for many imported goods, while droughts also elevate prices. Rising oil prices from the Iran conflict have made fertilizer more expensive, though this impact will take months to reach grocery shelves. Higher diesel fuel costs are increasing shipping expenses, affecting virtually everything in stores.

Shoppers paid 6.5% more for fresh fruits and vegetables last month compared to April 2025, and 8.8% more for meat, Labor Department data shows.

Tomato prices surged 40% over the past year after the Trump administration imposed a 17% duty on fresh tomatoes from Mexico in July 2025.

Dry conditions in the Western U.S. have elevated beef prices, which stood 15% higher year-over-year in April. Coffee prices increased 18.5%, partially due to drought and weather conditions damaging global coffee production.

Consumer confidence surveys show Americans continue citing high prices as a primary concern. These surveys reveal consumers generally maintain pessimistic economic outlooks, despite low unemployment and modest continued economic growth.

Polling also indicates most Americans have grown critical of the president’s economic policies, with Democrats gaining electoral advantages by emphasizing “affordability” issues, a topic likely to influence this year’s midterm elections.

Federal immigration officials have given roughly 11,000 Lebanese residents living in the United States an additional six months of protection from deportation, the Department of Homeland Security announced Thursday.

This extension represents an uncommon instance of relief under a program that has faced significant Republican opposition. The move occurs while military conflict continues in southern Lebanon involving Israeli forces and Hezbollah militants.

The protection extension occurred automatically because federal officials failed to meet their required deadline for determining whether to continue the program known as Temporary Protected Status for Lebanese individuals. Under federal law, when the department misses this deadline, the status continues for an additional six months.

This outcome stands out for an administration that has terminated similar protections previously covering individuals from 13 nations, including Venezuela, Haiti, Nicaragua and Syria.

Congress established TPS in 1990 to halt deportations to nations experiencing natural disasters or civil conflict, providing work authorization in periods lasting up to 18 months. Over 1 million immigrants from 17 nations had TPS protection when the Trump administration began, following significant expansion under the Biden administration.

According to the DHS announcement, former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and current Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who has overseen the department for two months, “were unable to make an informed determination on Lebanon’s TPS designation” before the March 28 deadline.

Current beneficiaries may maintain their protections until Nov. 27, 2026, “if they still meet the eligibility requirements for TPS,” the announcement stated. Work authorization documents previously issued to Lebanese TPS recipients remain valid through that date.

The Trump administration announced new proposed regulations Friday that would expand political appointees’ authority over billions of dollars in federal grant funding, drawing sharp criticism from scientists who warn the changes threaten independent research.

The sweeping regulatory proposal represents what could be the most significant overhaul of federal grant distribution in recent years, mandating that senior political appointees evaluate funding decisions for compliance with legal requirements and presidential priorities.

Under the proposed changes, administration officials would gain expanded authority to cancel previously approved grants, potentially putting millions of dollars in active research projects at risk.

The Office of Management and Budget released the extensive 400-plus page proposal, arguing that the previous Biden administration permitted insufficient transparency and oversight in grant distribution, resulting in federal funding for what they termed “woke” initiatives.

“Collectively, these policies wasted a great amount of taxpayer resources and caused great harm to public trust in government,” the document reads. “The proposed reforms are necessary to ensure greater accountability for use of public funds.”

Following a period for public input, OMB and federal departments will determine whether to modify the proposal before implementing final rules, potentially as early as this summer.

Research advocates argue the changes would damage America’s position as a global leader in scientific innovation by placing research funding under political influence rather than scientific merit. They express concern that the modifications will create delays in grant processing and approval, hampering scientific advancement and medical discoveries.

The proposal implements an executive directive issued by President Donald Trump during the previous summer. Since beginning his second term, the administration has been canceling research funding for subjects the president considers unsuitable for study, including transgender health research and diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization, criticized the administration’s proposed regulations, stating they would eliminate funding from any initiative that recognizes diversity, abortion access, or transgender and nonbinary individuals.

“Withholding public grants from programs that depend on them because you refuse to acknowledge the humanity of certain communities is not good government – it’s fascism,” said spokesperson Laurel Powell. “We will fight back.”

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Postal Service unveiled proposed regulations on Friday that would mandate states furnish voter information for federal elections, coming just one day after a federal judge chose not to immediately halt President Donald Trump’s executive order addressing mail-in voting procedures.

According to a Federal Register notice published Friday, the proposed USPS regulations would mandate states supply voter names along with corresponding barcodes linked to their mail-in ballots for federal elections. The public will have a 30-day period to submit comments on the proposed regulations before the Trump administration can move forward with finalizing them.

A day earlier, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington chose not to halt Trump’s March 31 executive order regarding mail-in ballots, though the judge did not rule on the order’s legality.

Louisiana’s Republican-led Senate is expected to approve new congressional district boundaries on Friday, part of a broader national effort by the GOP to secure control of the U.S. House in November’s elections. The move could make Louisiana another Southern state to dismantle a majority-Black congressional district that previously sent a Democrat to Washington.

Senators are scheduled to vote on redistricting legislation that would provide Republicans an opportunity to gain another seat following the U.S. Supreme Court’s late April ruling that declared Louisiana’s congressional map an illegal racial gerrymander.

The House overwhelmingly approved a modified version of the map on Thursday. After the legislature gives final approval to the boundaries, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry is anticipated to sign the measure into law.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, multiple Republican-led Southern states have taken advantage of a weakened federal Voting Rights Act to attempt redrawing their congressional boundaries. This represents another escalation in an intense nationwide redistricting battle approaching November’s elections, with encouragement from President Donald Trump.

Republicans are currently ahead in the redistricting competition. However, this advantage doesn’t guarantee they’ll control a closely divided U.S. House after November. Republicans believe their redistricting work could net them up to 14 additional seats, while Democrats estimate they might gain six seats through new boundaries in California and Utah.

Currently, Republicans control four out of six Louisiana congressional seats under a court-mandated map created in 2024 to satisfy Voting Rights Act requirements by establishing a second district with a majority-Black population.

Legal challenges targeted that map, leading the Supreme Court to invalidate it on April 30 as an illegal racial gerrymander.

Landry delayed the state’s U.S. House primary from its original May 16 date to later in the summer, providing Republican legislators time to craft and approve new district boundaries.

The new proposal reshapes Democratic U.S. Rep. Cleo Fields’ district, concentrating it around predominantly white areas in the Baton Rouge region and southern Louisiana. It also incorporates portions of Baton Rouge into a heavily Democratic, majority-Black district centered in New Orleans that Democratic U.S. Rep. Troy Carter currently represents.

Additional legal challenges to the new map are anticipated.

Democrats argue the proposed boundaries might still represent a racial gerrymander by concentrating Black voters into one congressional district. At the same time, those who brought the U.S. Supreme Court case have criticized the Legislature’s map for maintaining a majority-Black district.

Other Southern states have also pursued redistricting following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Florida’s Legislature approved new congressional districts within hours of the decision, finalizing a redrawing process that had been prepared in advance of the ruling. This could provide Republicans with as many as four extra seats in the midterm elections.

Tennessee enacted new U.S. House districts one week after the ruling, dividing a majority-Black district centered in Memphis as Republicans seek to capture an additional seat.

In Alabama, Republicans are working to gain another seat by redrawing two districts where Black residents make up a majority or near-majority. Democrats currently hold both seats, and the proposal faces ongoing court challenges.

South Carolina’s Senate chose not to pursue redistricting, despite pressure from Trump.

WASHINGTON – Former U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi faced questioning Friday during a private session with a Republican-controlled House committee regarding the Justice Department’s management of records from the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

House of Representatives Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer explained to reporters ahead of the session that lawmakers would inquire about unreleased materials. “We will be asking today about why documents still are not released….what documents remain and why they haven’t been turned over,” Comer stated. He emphasized that the committee should receive all available documents without exception.

During Bondi’s tenure, the Justice Department made public over 3 million pages of documentation, though the agency drew criticism for withholding certain materials. Department officials defended their position, stating they would not make public information that could expose victims or jeopardize active investigations. However, both Democrats and some Republicans alleged that Bondi was attempting to protect President Donald Trump from examination. Trump initially resisted releasing the information before Congress passed legislation with overwhelming support mandating their disclosure.

On April 2, Trump dismissed Bondi, citing her management of the Epstein documents as one of the reasons.

Trump and Epstein maintained a social relationship during the 1990s and early 2000s, though Trump has consistently stated he severed ties with Epstein before the latter’s 2008 guilty plea for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

Epstein faced arrest again in 2019 on charges of sex trafficking minors, with accusations of recruiting and exploiting underage girls in New York and Florida. He died in a New York detention facility later that year in what authorities determined was a suicide.

The released Epstein documents exposed the financier’s connections to influential figures including Trump, former President Bill Clinton and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former Duke of York. All parties have denied any awareness of Epstein’s alleged trafficking activities.

Democratic Representative Robert Garcia of Texas expressed criticism regarding Comer’s choice not to record Bondi’s testimony, arguing that video documentation would have enabled the public to observe her responses and behavior.

Garcia also noted that Democrats have concerns about the partial nature of the document release and questioned why materials containing private details about Epstein survivors were made public, potentially placing them at risk.

An Epstein abuse survivor attended the proceedings to voice disapproval of Bondi’s document handling. “It boggles my mind that the Department of Justice released nude photos…the Department of Justice released pornography. That is unacceptable,” survivor Charlene Richard told reporters outside the committee meeting room.

Multiple states controlled by Republicans are rapidly redrawing their congressional boundaries before November’s midterm elections, attempting to preserve their slim control of the U.S. House of Representatives in an ongoing nationwide redistricting battle.

This political struggle started last summer when U.S. President Donald Trump urged Texas Republicans to create new district lines targeting five seats held by Democrats. California Democrats countered with their own boundaries aimed at five Republican office holders, sparking similar efforts in other states.

Through spring, both political parties had achieved roughly equal results. However, two key court rulings – a U.S. Supreme Court decision that weakened protections for majority-Black districts, and a Virginia Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Democratic-supported map – have tilted the playing field toward Republicans.

Republicans now seem positioned to conclude this redistricting round with gains of up to 10 House seats across the nation. Since Democrats require only three additional Republican-controlled seats from 2024 to secure a majority, each district carries significant weight.

**REPUBLICAN ADVANCES**

**TENNESSEE – ONE SEAT**

On May 7, Tennessee Republican legislators passed new congressional boundaries that eliminated a majority-Black district centered around Memphis, making it the first state to capitalize on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that undermined the Voting Rights Act.

The current representative from that district, Democrat Steve Cohen, declared he would not run for reelection after the redistricting, virtually ensuring Republicans will capture all nine seats in November.

**SOUTH CAROLINA – UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT**

On May 26, the state Senate voted down new boundaries that would have broken up the district represented by veteran Democratic U.S. Representative Jim Clyburn. Despite White House pressure, multiple Republicans joined Democrats in defeating the proposal, which had passed the state House of Representatives with ease.

Republicans presently control the state’s remaining six U.S. House districts.

**ALABAMA – POTENTIALLY ONE SEAT**

On May 26, three U.S. judges prevented Alabama from implementing new boundaries that would have removed one of two U.S. House districts with majority or near-majority Black populations, determining that legislators deliberately disadvantaged Black voters when creating the lines.

Alabama Republicans have challenged that ruling with the U.S. Supreme Court, which had earlier removed a previous block from the same judicial panel and directed the judges to reconsider the boundaries following the high court’s April decision that diminished the Voting Rights Act.

Democrats represent the two districts with substantial Black populations, while Republicans hold the remaining five seats.

**TEXAS – UP TO FIVE SEATS**

In early December, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a new Republican-supported map targeting five Democratic-controlled seats to proceed. The court’s ruling reversed a lower court decision that had determined the map likely discriminated against minority voters.

Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott enacted the map in August. Earlier, over 50 Democratic legislators left the state, temporarily blocking a vote, but eventually returned. Republicans currently control 25 of Texas’ 38 seats under Republican-drawn boundaries from 2021.

**FLORIDA – UP TO FOUR SEATS**

Republican Governor Ron DeSantis created new boundaries designed to flip four Democratic-controlled seats and convened a special legislative session in late April, where the Republican majority enacted it. Democrats have promised to contest the map in court, referencing a state constitutional clause that specifically prohibits the legislature from creating districts solely for partisan advantage.

Republicans currently hold 20 of the state’s 28 seats, following DeSantis and the legislature’s 2022 map that flipped four Democratic seats.

**MISSOURI – ONE SEAT**

Republican Governor Mike Kehoe enacted new boundaries in September that eliminated a Democratic-controlled seat based in Kansas City, providing his party with advantages in seven of the state’s eight congressional seats.

**OHIO – UP TO TWO SEATS**

A state law provision required new boundaries for 2026 because the previous ones were approved without any Democratic support. The state’s redistricting commission, comprising five Republicans and two Democrats, unanimously approved compromise boundaries in October that increased Republican opportunities to flip two Democratic-controlled seats but fell short of Democrats’ worst fears. Republicans control 10 of the state’s 15 seats.

**NORTH CAROLINA – ONE SEAT**

The state legislature’s Republican majority approved new boundaries in October intended to flip a Democratic seat, which would grant Republicans control of 11 of the state’s 14 U.S. House seats despite its status as a competitive swing state. Under state law, Democratic Governor Josh Stein had no authority in the process.

**LOUISIANA – POTENTIALLY ONE SEAT**

Republican Governor Jeff Landry postponed the state’s May 16 primary election for the U.S. House immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court determined Louisiana’s map constituted unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

The Republican-majority state House of Representatives approved new boundaries on May 28 that eliminate one of two districts with substantial Black populations, both represented by Democrats. The state Senate is anticipated to approve the plan, which would likely enable Republicans to capture the seat in November. Republicans currently hold four of the state’s six districts.

**INDIANA – UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT**

Indiana’s Republican-controlled Senate rejected new boundaries aimed at flipping the state’s only two Democratic House seats, representing an unusual rejection of Trump from his own party members. Republicans control seven of the state’s nine U.S. House seats.

**KANSAS – UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT**

Kansas Republicans abandoned a Trump-supported effort to redraw the state’s congressional boundaries after the state House speaker, Republican Dan Hawkins, stated in January there was insufficient support in his chamber to overcome a veto threat from Democratic Governor Laura Kelly. Republicans currently hold three of the state’s four U.S. House seats.

**DEMOCRATIC ADVANCES**

**CALIFORNIA – UP TO FIVE SEATS**

Voters decisively approved new boundaries supported by Governor Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislators designed to flip up to five Republican-controlled seats in direct response to Texas. Democrats presently hold 43 of the state’s 52 districts.

**VIRGINIA – COURT BLOCKED EFFORT**

Virginia voters on April 21 approved new Democratic-created congressional boundaries in a special election that could have flipped four Republican U.S. House seats. However, the state Supreme Court on May 8 invalidated the results, ruling that Democratic legislators failed to follow proper procedures when they passed the proposed referendum and placed it on the ballot.

**UTAH – ONE SEAT**

A state judge invalidated a Republican-created map as illegally partisan and implemented an alternative that will likely flip one of the state’s four Republican-controlled seats to Democrats.

**MARYLAND – EFFORT STALLED**

Democrats in the state House advanced new boundaries in February that targeted the state’s only Republican member of Congress, a move supported by Democratic Governor Wes Moore and national Democratic leaders. Democrats hold the state’s remaining seven House districts.

However, the state Senate president, Democrat Bill Ferguson, opposed the legislation, though he has indicated he might consider revisiting the issue before 2028.

**NEW YORK – COURT BLOCKED EFFORT**

A New York judge in January directed the state’s independent redistricting commission to redraw a Republican-controlled congressional district centered on New York City’s Staten Island borough, potentially providing Democrats an opportunity to capture the seat in November. However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority suspended that decision on March 2, approving a request from the incumbent Republican, Nicole Malliotakis.

Democrats hold 19 of the state’s 26 seats.

WASHINGTON/MEXICO CITY – The Trump administration is pushing for stricter manufacturing requirements in the North American trade agreement, seeking 82% regional content in vehicles to qualify for trade benefits, with half of that production coming from American facilities, according to four sources with knowledge of the negotiations.

This proposal was presented during recent trade discussions between the United States and Mexico in Mexico City, focusing on changes to the six-year-old U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Notably absent from these bilateral talks is Canada, and the new proposal contains no requirements for Canadian content, sources indicated.

The suggested changes would represent a significant departure from existing USMCA rules. Currently, the agreement mandates that 40% of passenger vehicle “core parts” value come from high-wage areas, essentially the United States or Canada, with pickup trucks facing a 45% requirement. The overall regional content threshold stands at 75% for North American vehicles to receive preferential trade status under the current USMCA framework.

President Donald Trump announced through a social media post that he plans to convene a meeting Friday in the White House Situation Room to reach a final decision on an agreement with Iran.

The announcement was made on May 29, with the president indicating the upcoming meeting would be decisive regarding the Iranian deal.

A Virginia federal court has issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from distributing compensation through a controversial $1.776 billion fund designed for Republican allies claiming government persecution.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, issued the Friday ruling that also prevents the administration from establishing the fund while legal challenges proceed.

The Clinton-appointed judge has set a June 12 court hearing to consider arguments about extending the restraining order against the “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The administration established this fund as part of resolving the president’s legal action against the Internal Revenue Service regarding leaked tax documents.

Since its announcement last week, the fund has sparked intense criticism across party lines, with Republican lawmakers questioning acting Attorney General Todd Blanche about who would qualify for payments and whether January 6, 2021 Capitol rioters could receive compensation.

No payments have been distributed or applications approved since the Justice Department has not yet assembled the five-person panel responsible for establishing payout guidelines.

Legal representatives from Democracy Forward, a legal advocacy organization, are pursuing a court injunction to stop the fund’s launch and block any future distributions. Their federal lawsuit argues the fund lacks proper legal foundation and oversight mechanisms.

The country’s biggest abortion provider has initiated a new effort called “Just In Case,” encouraging women to purchase abortion medications ahead of time in case access becomes restricted in their state. Anti-abortion advocates argue that these medications can cost hundreds of dollars depending on location, and this stockpiling initiative will significantly increase revenue for Planned Parenthood, an organization that already gets government funding.

A conservative California community that prohibited Pride flags at city hall and elected Trump-supporting officials is expected to gain a Democratic representative who is gay, liberal, and vocal in his opposition to the former president.

The shift stems from congressional district boundary changes. Redistricting efforts accelerated after the former president encouraged states, beginning with Texas, to create voting maps that would benefit the Republican Party. With House control hanging in the balance for November’s elections, California’s Democratic-majority responded to Texas’s actions by approving a strategy targeting five GOP-held seats.

“So, two wrongs make a right?” questioned Pat Burns, a city councilman, speaking from his office where a Trump sculpture that he previously displayed during council sessions now rests on his desk. “It’s just California ugly-ass politics, and they are all about their agenda and not about the people. They don’t care about the people of California one bit.”

The coastal city finds itself among communities in approximately twelve states affected by redistricting conflicts, where political parties reshape electoral maps for strategic advantage through gerrymandering.

Consequently, residents may unexpectedly discover they belong to new districts with representatives they believe don’t align with their values.

This conservative stronghold in predominantly liberal Southern California has clashed with progressives during the Trump presidency, opposing state Democrats on matters including voter identification requirements and housing density regulations. While officially known as Surf City USA, the community embodies surf culture’s independent spirit rather than stereotypical relaxed attitudes.

Currently, the city falls under Representative Dave Min’s jurisdiction, a Democrat viewed as centrist and practical. The community prohibited rainbow Pride flags and other non-governmental banners from municipal property following a local referendum in 2024.

However, redistricting means November’s elections will likely place the area under Robert Garcia’s representation, a 48-year-old progressive gay immigrant who stated during an interview that he has “been dealing with homophobia my whole life.”

Garcia, serving his second House term, hails from a neighboring city of 450,000 residents across the county boundary. Previously in separate districts, both communities have been merged through gerrymandering and will now share House representation.

The Peru-born Garcia immigrated to America as a youth. After serving as his city’s mayor, he won his congressional seat in 2022 and secured re-election in 2024 by 36 percentage points. He’s strongly positioned to lead the June 2 primary testing the new districts and win the November general election.

As a Trump critic, Garcia holds the ranking Democratic position on the House Oversight Committee, Congress’s executive branch watchdog. His positions on immigration, climate change, and healthcare oppose the MAGA platform.

“I’ve represented people I don’t agree with on everything, my entire time as mayor, and currently as a member of Congress,” Garcia explained. “That’s OK. That’s America.”

Domnic McGee, a local Planning Commission member and conservative activist, views redistricting as part of Democrats’ broader effort to strengthen California control and promote opposing policies. McGee said he intends to “fight for traditional American values” and oppose “overreach” from the left.

“The Democrats now with redistricting are set to take even more power in California,” McGee stated. “They want to rule by fiat.”

Janet Jacobs, who attended a recent council meeting, strongly supports the “Make America Great Again” movement.

“Trump is doing a hell of a job, and God is on his side,” declared Jacobs, wearing a red cap reading “Make Huntington Beach Great Again” and “7-0,” celebrating the council’s 7-0 MAGA majority.

Nevertheless, Garcia anticipates collaboration over conflict.

“I expect actually there’s going to be a lot of partnerships with the cities, especially communities like Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. While they might have a more conservative council, at the end of the day, they want the same thing that communities in Long Beach want,” Garcia told reporters.

Garcia identified offshore oil drilling as one unifying district concern. “Whether you’re in Huntington Beach or Newport Beach or Seal Beach, that is a huge concern to everybody here,” Garcia noted. He promised to be “much more engaged on that issue” given the Trump administration’s efforts to reopen California’s coastline to oil production.

Mayor Casey McKeon expects any representative to perform their duties professionally. He referenced former Representative Michelle Steel, a Republican who collaborated with a then-liberal council on beach sand restoration.

“She still did what was right for Huntington Beach,” McKeon observed. “She didn’t let politics get in the way of that.”

Todd Blanche’s efforts to secure permanent confirmation as attorney general hit a major obstacle as lawmakers return to Washington next week, with a controversial $1.776 billion compensation fund drawing fierce criticism from his own party.

Since becoming acting attorney general in early April following President Donald Trump’s dismissal of his predecessor, Pam Bondi, Blanche has pursued an aggressive agenda aligned with Trump’s priorities. Under his leadership, the Justice Department filed criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey, intensified investigations into former CIA Director John Brennan, and pulled press releases regarding prosecutions of individuals who participated in the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack.

However, the so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund” – established through a settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over leaked tax records – has become a lightning rod for criticism. Opponents have labeled the compensation program a “slush fund” designed to benefit Trump’s political supporters.

The fund’s unveiling last week prompted such strong opposition that senators scrapped a scheduled vote on immigration enforcement funding in protest. Several Republican legislators are now considering either imposing restrictions on the fund or scrapping it completely.

During a heated closed-door session with Senate Republicans, Blanche faced intense criticism over the fund’s political implications and the possibility that individuals convicted of violent offenses could receive taxpayer money.

“The Republican senators were pissed,” Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, said on his podcast. “The entire meeting, they were screaming at the acting attorney general.”

Trump has endorsed the compensation program, stating in a social media message that he supports helping those “abused” by Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration.

In defending the initiative, Blanche maintains that no political affiliation requirements exist for filing claims. A five-member oversight commission, with four members to be selected directly by Blanche, would manage payments to individuals claiming victimization through “lawfare” or “weaponization” – terminology frequently employed by Trump and his supporters when criticizing legal actions against them.

The resistance from Senate Republicans, whose approval Blanche needs for confirmation, highlights the dangers of his Trump-focused strategy. Federal courts have also expressed skepticism toward the Justice Department in multiple proceedings.

“There’s just a fundamental incompatibility between his (Trump’s) demand that the Justice Department carry out loyally all of his retributive goals, and his desire to see those things succeed in courts and before grand juries,” said Peter Keisler, a former DOJ official who served as acting attorney general under Republican President George W. Bush.

A department spokesperson said Blanche has “strong, productive relationships with both Congress and the courts as the laws of our nation are enforced.”

“Any notion that Acting AG Blanche lacks support from these institutions is simply false,” the spokesperson said.

One day after the confrontational meeting with Republican lawmakers, a federal judge delivered another setback to Blanche’s leadership.

Tennessee-based U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw threw out human smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, determining that prosecutors improperly filed the case as retaliation for his legal challenge to his wrongful deportation to El Salvador last year.

In his decision, the judge referenced Blanche’s comments during a June 2025 Fox News interview when Blanche, then serving as deputy attorney general, stated that the government launched its investigation into Abrego after another federal judge questioned his deportation.

Crenshaw, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama, said Blanche’s statements connected DOJ leadership “to the tainted investigation and confirm what motivated it.”

The Justice Department has promised to challenge the decision, describing it as “wrong and dangerous.” In legal documents, prosecutors have rejected any claims of political motivation.

Blanche rose through the ranks from paralegal to supervisor at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, known for attracting elite federal prosecutors. He departed his role at a prestigious New York law firm in 2023 to represent Trump, who was having difficulty securing legal representation amid numerous state and federal investigations.

“He’s lived this lawfare for years. He understands the viciousness of it. He understands the dangers of it,” said Mike Davis, a Trump ally and the head of the Article III Project, a conservative legal advocacy group, who called Blanche the “man for the moment.”

Blanche developed a strong relationship with Trump, embracing his combative approach while defending against three of the four criminal cases Trump confronted during his time out of office. He was appointed to the Justice Department’s second-highest position after Trump’s 2024 election victory.

Rebecca Roiphe, a professor at New York Law School and a legal ethics expert, said Blanche’s previous role as Trump’s lawyer may place him “in a different mindset” than others who have led the DOJ.

“You have really one person that you’re looking out for and you grow to think of them and their goals as the be all and end all of your professional life,” Roiphe said. “Then when you assume a position where you’re supposed to be representing the public, you might have an altered view.”

COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina Democrats have reason to feel optimistic as they convene Friday in a state dominated by Republican leadership.

The Democratic Party is hosting events just days after the Republican-controlled state Senate defeated a redistricting proposal supported by President Donald Trump that would have redrawn congressional boundaries to benefit the GOP in upcoming elections. The plan specifically targeted longtime Rep. Jim Clyburn, South Carolina’s only Democratic House representative and an influential party leader who has served since 1993.

Friday’s activities begin with the Blue Palmetto Dinner, the party’s annual fundraising event that traditionally features potential White House candidates and prominent Democratic figures. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear will serve as the main speaker.

Following the dinner is Clyburn’s signature “World Famous Fish Fry” event. What started as a way to thank campaign volunteers has evolved into a must-attend gathering for presidential hopefuls. Candidates get one minute to deliver their pitch alongside Clyburn, whose endorsement has helped propel presidents to victory.

These gatherings occur while early in-person voting continues for South Carolina’s June 9 primary. Voters will select candidates for various positions including governor, U.S. Senate and U.S. House. If state Senate Republicans had approved the White House-pushed redistricting plan, congressional voting would have been postponed and new primaries scheduled under different district maps.

The state Senate redistricting vote failed Tuesday, coinciding with the first day of early voting, with several senators arguing it was too late to modify district boundaries.

Clyburn, who is Black, criticized the White House-driven initiative, saying it aimed at “zeroing Democratic voters, zeroing African American voters out of the process.”

“I know the state, and I am embarrassed that so many people in our legislature will allow strangers in Washington to tell them what to do, when to do it and how to do it,” Clyburn stated while voting in Orangeburg on Tuesday.

South Carolina’s political situation reflects a broader Republican approach to redraw electoral maps favoring the GOP as they work to maintain their narrow House majority in midterm elections. Republicans have acted swiftly to capitalize on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that reduced minority protections under the federal Voting Rights Act.

For the time being, Clyburn’s district remains intact, along with his role as the Democratic leader White House contenders seek out for advice on connecting with the state’s voters.

Biden was among 21 presidential candidates who appeared at Clyburn’s fish fry in 2019, later overcoming early primary setbacks to win decisively in South Carolina after receiving Clyburn’s endorsement.

At 85, the senior member of South Carolina’s Democratic delegation is pursuing an 18th term representing the 6th District, a goal that appears secure following the redistricting defeat.

However, Clyburn, one of the eldest Democrats in Washington, has described it as an “open question” whether this term might be his final one, and a large field of Democratic candidates is expected to emerge whenever he decides to step down.

The end of November’s midterm elections will unofficially launch the 2028 presidential primary season. While the Democratic voting sequence won’t be determined for months, the early competition for attention has already intensified across multiple states — including South Carolina — that candidates hope will be crucial in selecting party nominees.

Beshear appears to be positioning himself among potential candidates. He has concentrated much of his efforts on building relationships with labor leaders who supported Biden’s successful 2020 campaign. This year alone, the two-term governor has delivered keynote remarks at the New Hampshire Democratic Party convention, raised funds for local Democrats and participated in discussions at AFL-CIO headquarters.

Last summer, he visited South Carolina for two days, speaking at an AFL-CIO convention and meeting with party officials throughout the state.

Beshear isn’t the only national figure attending. California Rep. Ro Khanna, who has also made multiple recent trips to South Carolina, will headline Saturday’s state convention and attend Friday’s dinner.

South Carolina’s annual gathering takes place as the Democratic National Committee considers its 2028 primary schedule. The state is campaigning to maintain its first-in-the-nation status, though party leaders say they wouldn’t consider it a defeat if another state opened the calendar.

The crucial element, they emphasize, is preserving South Carolina’s position as an early primary state, which brings regular attention — and campaign dollars — from Democrats to a state that typically supports Republicans in general elections.

On Thursday, Democratic party leaders from five southern states sent a letter to DNC officials encouraging them to again select South Carolina for the opening primary slot.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass acknowledges her first term leading the nation’s second-largest city has been challenging as she campaigns for reelection. “I haven’t always got it right,” she admits candidly.

Despite the difficulties, the first Black woman to serve as mayor believes she deserves another chance to lead the nearly 4 million residents of the city preparing to host the 2028 Olympics. Murder rates have declined and street homelessness has decreased under her leadership. Reconstruction of homes lost in devastating wildfires has begun, though critics argue progress remains too slow.

“There’s more work to do,” Bass states.

Mayoral campaigns in Los Angeles typically generate little excitement in a city more focused on the Lakers, Dodgers and entertainment industry than local politics. However, this election cycle stands apart as Bass works to overcome criticism from the Palisades Fire, which became the most destructive blaze in the city’s history. The mayor was traveling in Ghana as part of a presidential delegation when the fire began.

Reality television star Spencer Pratt lost his home in the disaster and now seeks to unseat the mayor he holds responsible for the destruction.

The campaign has taken an unusual turn with artificial intelligence-generated videos featuring Pratt as a superhero fighting street crime and Democratic officials. Filmmaker Charles Curran created the content, which Pratt distributes through his social media channels.

Tuesday’s primary will send the top two vote-getters to a November general election unless one candidate secures a majority.

While officially nonpartisan, Bass represents the Democratic Party, along with progressive city council member Nithya Raman, who decided late to challenge her former political ally.

Pratt gained fame with his wife, Heidi Montag, on “The Hills” and is a registered Republican who has received approval from President Donald Trump, though not a formal endorsement.

A University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Governmental Studies poll conducted with The Los Angeles Times shows Bass, Raman and Pratt in a statistical tie, with other candidates lagging behind. The survey of 1,351 likely voters between May 19 and May 24 found no candidate with a clear advantage.

The tight race represents dangerous territory for any sitting mayor, highlighting public skepticism about her performance.

During a recent Saturday campaign stop, Bass appeared confident while greeting enthusiastic supporters in a Mid-City neighborhood, where she deposited her ballot. Despite facing potential electoral trouble, she seemed relaxed, smiling warmly while interacting with dogs and young children.

When asked about Pratt’s growing national profile, she characterized him as lacking serious political credentials.

“He is an entertainer and that’s what he’s doing is entertaining,” Bass commented.

She also raised questions about Pratt’s viability in a city where fewer than 15% of registered voters belong to the Republican Party. Trump remains deeply unpopular in California beyond his conservative supporters, capturing only 32% of Los Angeles County votes two years ago. No Republican has won the mayor’s office since 1997.

“This is Los Angeles,” Bass declared. “This is not a MAGA city.”

Diane Mitchell Henry, a registered Democrat and event planner supporting Bass, praised the mayor’s extensive government background.

“She knows the heartbeat of Los Angeles,” she explained. “I trust her.”

With 14 candidates on the ballot, a November runoff seems inevitable.

Democratic strategist Garry South predicts Bass will advance to the general election despite declining approval ratings, likely facing Pratt in the final round.

He doubts whether Pratt’s social media campaign effectively reaches actual voters, noting that the state’s most consistent voters tend to be older, white and affluent homeowners.

“Most voters are over 50, pure and simple. You are not going to grab that demographic by posting clever stuff on YouTube and Instagram,” South observed.

The race echoes the 2022 election when billionaire developer Rick Caruso campaigned on increased police funding during heightened concerns about crime and homelessness. Bass ultimately prevailed by nearly 10 percentage points.

Beyond immediate challenges of wildfire recovery and homelessness, Los Angeles struggles to define its future direction.

The entertainment industry has steadily moved production to less expensive locations. A downtown revitalization effort collapsed during pandemic lockdowns, leaving many office buildings struggling to find tenants. The city continues battling long-standing problems with basic services like street maintenance and streetlight repairs. The restaurant sector has suffered numerous high-profile closures. Trump administration immigration enforcement has created anxiety among residents. Traffic congestion remains a persistent problem.

Bass won election in 2022 by promising to address the homeless crisis and rising crime rates that gained national attention through smash-and-grab robberies. She has secured support from most Democratic leaders, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, Gov. Gavin Newsom and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, plus the city’s influential labor organizations.

“We are not going to have this level of failure in our city for four more years,” Pratt told CNBC on Thursday. He described the city as unsafe and disgusting, saying “We pay with our money to give needles to drug addicts to overdose in front of kids.”

Raman has pledged to accelerate housing development, restore entertainment industry employment and improve street maintenance and other essential services. She believes residents are “hungry for a different future for this city — one that is affordable, functional, creative and safe,” according to a Thursday statement.

Bass dismissed concerns about her competition.

“We’re almost to the finish line,” she said after casting her ballot. “I’m feeling good.”

A federal law designed to expose the hidden ownership of shell companies is facing political headwinds despite previously enjoying support from both major political parties. The Corporate Transparency Act, which was intended to bring greater accountability to business structures that can obscure their true owners, no longer has the cross-party backing it once received.

The Trump administration is now moving to halt the implementation of this transparency legislation, marking a significant shift in the political landscape surrounding corporate disclosure requirements.

WASHINGTON — Former Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before House lawmakers Friday for closed-door questioning regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse cases, marking a significant moment that puts renewed focus on the administration’s mishandled release of Epstein-related documents.

In prior public hearings, Bondi displayed a confrontational stance when questioned by legislators about the Epstein matter. Whether she will maintain that same demeanor Friday remains uncertain, given that she no longer leads the Justice Department. The questioning session is taking place privately.

The recorded interview provides legislators an opportunity to seek details about how the administration handled Epstein documents and related issues, including the imprisonment of his former associate and girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. The Justice Department transferred Maxwell to a Texas prison facility last August.

“I think she absolutely could clear up many missing pieces if she wanted to,” said Rep. Yassamin Ansari, an Arizona Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. “Now it’s a question of whether or not she is willing to be transparent.”

Legislators are seeking information about prosecutorial decisions regarding Epstein’s associates, how the Justice Department managed the congressional requirement to release Epstein documents, and whether President Donald Trump played a role in the proceedings.

Bondi, who disclosed this week that she is receiving treatment for thyroid cancer, has remained connected to Trump’s circle despite leaving her position in early April.

This week, Trump named her to a White House artificial intelligence panel, and Justice Department officials, including Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the department’s Civil Rights Division, will accompany Bondi Friday as her legal representation.

Democrats characterize this arrangement as creating a conflict of interest.

A Justice Department spokesperson explained that officials were present to assist lawmakers in understanding the department’s procedures for releasing case documents.

Bondi has been at the center of the political controversy surrounding Epstein, first creating expectations for complete disclosure of the Epstein documents, then reversing course. This change prompted congressional action to mandate the release through legislation.

Bondi encountered additional criticism when the Justice Department delayed releasing the files and subsequently included personal details of potential victims. During congressional hearings, she has maintained that she was attempting to comply with legal requirements.

The House Oversight Committee has been pursuing a comprehensive Epstein investigation covering multiple presidential terms.

The committee issued a subpoena to Bondi in March through a bipartisan vote, but she attempted to avoid compliance by arranging a private meeting with lawmakers that month. This strategy only increased tensions between Bondi and committee Democrats.

Bondi’s exit from the Justice Department also created uncertainty about enforcing the congressional subpoena. Following Democratic committee members’ push for a civil contempt resolution against Bondi, she consented to participate in a transcribed interview instead of a sworn deposition.

Oversight panel Democrats have opposed this arrangement, arguing it permits Bondi to refuse answering questions. They have also urged the Republican committee chair, Rep. James Comer, to videotape the session.

“A failure to film and release a video of Ms. Bondi’s testimony would present a grave injustice to the American people and survivors of Epstein’s crimes,” the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Robert Garcia, wrote to Comer.

Comer explained he is permitting Bondi to participate in a transcribed interview rather than a deposition as encouragement for cooperation. Previously, he enforced subpoenas on former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when they resisted demands. Both of their depositions were video-recorded.

Nevertheless, Comer stated Bondi could face prosecution for providing false information to Congress. He indicated the committee would publish a transcript of the interview.

“Hopefully that will be good enough,” he said.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is caught in a challenging political position as he works to resolve the ongoing conflict with Iran, facing pressure to reopen critical shipping lanes and reduce gas prices while simultaneously dealing with potential criticism from hardline Republicans in his own party who oppose making any concessions to Tehran.

Trump’s predicament became apparent during a week of intensive diplomatic activity marked by reports of a developing framework agreement that, according to sources with knowledge of the negotiations, would extend the current ceasefire and end Iran’s control over the crucial oil-shipping route while postponing talks about its nuclear program.

If approved by both Trump and Iranian leadership, such a temporary agreement would represent the most meaningful progress toward peace since he partnered with Israel in launching attacks against the Islamic Republic on February 28, and could help alleviate the rising energy costs the conflict has caused.

However, the deal could also attract criticism from an important part of Trump’s political base – prominent Republicans demanding that he “finish the job” by continuing military strikes to eliminate Tehran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons, which he has cited as his primary justification for the war.

This week, some of Trump’s hardline anti-Iran supporters reacted to news of a possible agreement with disapproval, even suggesting that he might achieve little more than the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that former President Barack Obama negotiated and Trump dismantled during his first presidency.

Prominent Republicans who typically align with Trump, including Senators Lindsey Graham, Roger Wicker and Ted Cruz, encouraged the president to avoid making compromises.

Trump responded by stating he was in “no rush” and would only accept a “great” agreement.

Facing these conflicting pressures – finding a quick fix for high fuel costs while ending Iran’s nuclear aspirations – the president has limited options available.

“Trump’s rhetorical swings and abrupt reversals of the past week suggest a president trying to park a wide war in a tight spot,” said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East expert at Johns Hopkins University.

A White House official said “negotiations are proceeding nicely and he has made his redlines clear.”

“President Trump will only make a good deal for the American people, which must ensure that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon,” the official said on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Media reports on Thursday about the terms of the “memorandum of understanding” indicate the proposed agreement leaves many of the most difficult issues unresolved.

These include the strait’s future status over the long term, how Iran’s stockpile of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium will be handled, and specific details about possible sanctions relief.

The developing framework, while preventing military escalation, would currently fall well short of Trump’s previous demand for “unconditional surrender” and his promise to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has maintained it is only for peaceful purposes.

“If these terms are accurate and if a deal is concluded, the Islamic Republic appears to be getting more in the MOU than the U.S.,” Jason Brodsky, policy director of United Against Nuclear Iran, a nonprofit policy organization, said on X. “A pledge for more nuclear talks? Be wary.”

Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported the agreement text had not been completed. Trump has previously announced that deals were imminent multiple times, and there was no assurance that this latest attempt would succeed where previous efforts have failed.

This week’s diplomatic activity has occurred alongside a new but limited exchange of military strikes that has put stress on the fragile ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran.

Experts say Trump seems to be attempting to find a middle ground between pressuring Iran to make concessions on important matters while offering only modest compromises in return that would still enable him to present the result as a victory.

Reopening the strait would be welcomed globally, but Trump would simply be restoring the free movement of shipping that existed before he initiated the war.

At the same time, political and economic pressures are mounting for the president, whose public approval numbers have reached record lows.

Midterm elections are approaching in November, with fellow Republicans fighting to keep control of Congress, and recent analyses indicate that continued conflict would cause severe harm to the worldwide economy.

TRUMP DISMISSES MIDTERMS

Iran seems to be seeking immediate sanctions relief to help its damaged economy, which Trump’s critics worry he may find difficult to refuse while pursuing a deal to end the war.

During a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Trump appeared to address his critics by restating hardline positions and claiming he wasn’t concerned about the midterms. His advisers have privately worried that elevated gasoline prices could hurt Republicans’ election chances.

Iran has demonstrated confidence in its strong position, having shown it can withstand the military assault and control one-fifth of global oil supplies, according to analysts.

“The president gives every sign of wanting this over soon,” said Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. “That makes the Iranians dig in their heels.”

The past week’s dramatic shifts were typical for a president who ran on promises to avoid unnecessary conflicts, only to lead the U.S. into foreign involvement without clearly explaining the reasoning.

How he chooses to conclude the conflict is anticipated to be a significant element in shaping his second-term foreign policy record, experts say.

The chief federal prosecutor in Chicago has publicly refuted claims that his office initiated a criminal probe into E. Jean Carroll, the author who successfully sued U.S. President Donald Trump over sexual assault and defamation allegations.

On Thursday, U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros issued a statement clarifying his office’s position after reports emerged suggesting the Justice Department had begun examining Carroll’s testimony.

“The Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office can confirm that it has not opened – and has never opened – a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll,” Boutros stated.

The confusion arose after a source with knowledge of the situation informed Reuters on Wednesday that federal prosecutors were looking into potential perjury charges related to Carroll’s testimony in her two victorious civil cases against Trump.

Carroll’s attorney, Robbie Kaplan, has not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the matter.

According to the anonymous source, the alleged inquiry centered on Carroll’s statements during her successful legal battles, which concluded in 2023 and 2024. These cases involved accusations that Trump sexually assaulted her at a New York department store and subsequently defamed her by calling her a liar.

CNN was the first news outlet to report on the purported investigation.

The Trump administration’s Justice Department has initiated multiple investigations targeting the president’s critics and has filed criminal charges in several instances since taking office.

The source indicated that prosecutors were focusing on a 2022 deposition where the former Elle magazine writer stated she had not received external funding for her lawsuit. Her legal team later disclosed that Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn, had covered portions of her legal expenses.

However, an appeals court ruled in 2024 that “Ms. Carroll plausibly represented that she had forgotten about the limited outside funding counsel obtained in September 2020 when this question was first posed to her in 2022, and the additional discovery did not indicate otherwise.”

In May 2023, a jury determined that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll and defamed her through false statements, though they did not find him guilty of rape. A separate jury in January 2024 concluded he had defamed her and ordered him to pay $83.3 million in damages.

Trump continues to deny any wrongdoing and remains engaged in ongoing legal disputes with Carroll.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has swiftly implemented Trump’s directives since replacing his predecessor, has recused himself from any department investigation due to his previous role as one of Trump’s personal lawyers in the Carroll appeals process, according to the source.

A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration targeting Boston’s sanctuary city immigration policies.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, based in Boston, determined the U.S. Department of Justice did not have proper legal standing to bring the case forward. This represents one of approximately twelve similar legal challenges the department has pursued against jurisdictions with sanctuary policies led by Democrats.

The September lawsuit targeted the city and Democratic Mayor Michelle Wu, specifically challenging the Boston Trust Act, which was originally passed in 2014. City council members renewed their backing of the ordinance in December 2024 ahead of Trump’s return to the presidency.

Under this ordinance, the Boston Police Department and other municipal officials are prohibited from working with federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, on civil immigration matters. This includes restrictions on holding migrants for possible deportation or providing their personal details.

Federal attorneys contended these restrictions interfered with immigration enforcement activities and violated both the U.S. Constitution and federal immigration statutes.

However, Judge Sorokin, who received his appointment from Democratic President Barack Obama, concluded the administration could not prove it had proper legal standing to contest the policy. He also found they failed to show how a favorable court decision would address the alleged damages the federal government claimed to experience.

The judge noted that even if Boston’s ordinance were struck down, local police still would not be permitted to provide the assistance ICE sought. This is due to a 2017 decision by Massachusetts’ top court during Trump’s initial presidency that prevented state law enforcement from holding non-citizens based exclusively on federal civil immigration detainers.

“In Massachusetts, there is simply no source of authority empowering Boston police officers to do what the United States would like them to do,” Sorokin wrote.

The Justice Department has not provided a response to requests for comment.

Judge Sorokin’s decision indicates the Justice Department has been unsuccessful in all comparable cases against municipalities and states with sanctuary policies, with courts rejecting four additional lawsuits in Colorado, Illinois and New York.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law and for local governments across the country,” Jill Habig, whose group the Public Rights Project helped defend Boston against the lawsuit, said in a statement.

WASHINGTON — Television stations owned by ABC nationwide are fighting back against federal communications regulators, condemning what they describe as an improper and unconstitutional early examination of their broadcasting permits as tensions escalate between the network and the Trump administration’s agency.

“It is an extraordinary demonstration of power and coercion directed at disfavored editorial voices which sends a clear warning to every broadcaster in America,” WABC in New York wrote in an objection that accompanied paperwork filed to comply with the FCC’s demand for early applications to renew licenses.

Television stations owned by ABC in seven additional markets submitted comparable protests. Federal communications officials did not immediately provide a response when asked for comment.

The protest represents part of an escalating clash between the FCC and one of the nation’s leading broadcast networks. Led by Chairman Brendan Carr, the regulatory body has initiated investigations into ABC covering topics ranging from the company’s diversity policies to how the network handled a 2024 presidential debate to programming choices on “The View.” President Donald Trump has also consistently demanded that late-night host Jimmy Kimmel be terminated.

However, the FCC’s decision in April to start premature evaluations of broadcasting permits for ABC-owned stations in eight local markets drew especially significant scrutiny. The permits for stations in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, New York, Chicago and Philadelphia as well as Fresno, California, and Durham, North Carolina, were originally scheduled for renewal between 2028 and 2031.

Commissioner Anna Gomez, the FCC’s sole Democrat, has called the reviews an “egregious assault on the First Amendment.” On Thursday, she said she was glad to see the stations “expose the FCC’s actions as nothing more than naked political retribution and an unlawful assault on free speech and a free press.”

In its objection, WABC said the “ultimate injury here is not to the station or its parent company.”

“It is to the public,” the station said. “When a broadcaster must weigh regulatory retaliation before making editorial decisions, the public loses access to journalism that is free from government influence.”

This represents a dramatic change in ABC’s strategy toward political pressure from Washington. During the weeks before Trump’s return to office, the network agreed to a disputed $15 million defamation settlement, a decision that failed to reduce criticism from Trump and his supporters in subsequent years.

The network presented a stronger defense of free speech principles in documentation filed last month addressing an FCC examination of whether “The View” fell under equal time regulations. The agency contended that the law promoted additional speech, but ABC cautioned that open political dialogue was being suppressed by the Trump administration.

“The Commission’s actions threaten to upend decades of settled law and practice and chill critical protected speech, both with respect to The View and more broadly,” according to a filing on behalf of both KTRK-TV and ABC.

NEW YORK — Former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll faces a federal investigation into whether she provided false testimony during her lengthy court battle with President Donald Trump over allegations of sexual assault, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Carroll has spent nearly seven years in litigation with Trump regarding her claims that he sexually attacked her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in 1996. The legal proceedings have largely favored Carroll, with juries ruling against Trump and awarding her substantial monetary damages for his public statements questioning her truthfulness.

However, Trump’s Justice Department has now launched a probe into potential perjury by Carroll during the civil proceedings, a source told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity due to lack of authorization to discuss the ongoing matter. The investigation focuses on Carroll’s deposition testimony regarding the financing of her legal representation.

The legal saga began when Carroll publicly revealed her assault allegations in June 2019 through an excerpt from her upcoming memoir “What Do We Need Men For?” published in New York magazine. She detailed encountering Trump at Bergdorf Goodman, engaging in flirtation, and then defending herself during a sexual attack in a fitting room.

Trump responded with vehement denials of the accusations. “I’ve never met this person in my life. She is trying to sell a new book — that should be sold in the fiction section,” he stated. He also declared, “Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened.”

Carroll initiated a defamation lawsuit in 2019, asserting that Trump’s dismissal of her account as fabricated had “smeared her integrity, honesty and dignity — all in the national press.” This case became stalled for years due to disputes over whether Trump’s denial constituted official presidential duties, with Trump arguing his federal employee status protected him from the defamation claim.

When Carroll first filed suit, statutes of limitations prevented her from pursuing the underlying sexual assault allegations due to the passage of time. New York’s 2022 legal reforms created new opportunities for sexual abuse survivors to file claims regarding historical incidents. Carroll quickly utilized this change, filing fresh litigation accusing Trump of rape and addressing his post-presidency statements about her.

This second lawsuit progressed more rapidly through the court system, reaching trial in New York City during 2023. Trump declined to appear, allowing his attorneys to present his defense. The jury determined that while Carroll had not established rape under New York’s legal definition, Trump had committed sexual abuse. Jurors also concluded he made false statements damaging her reputation, resulting in a $5 million award for Carroll.

A second trial occurred in January 2024, with a federal judge overseeing proceedings to assess additional defamatory statements by Trump. The scope was limited since sexual assault had already been established, focusing solely on reputational damage from Trump’s credibility attacks and assault denials.

Trump participated in this second trial, providing approximately three minutes of testimony. “She said something that I considered to be a false accusation,” he informed the jury, adding, “I just wanted to defend myself, my family and, frankly, the presidency.”

Carroll described receiving numerous death threats following Trump’s repeated challenges to her account. The second jury again ruled for Carroll, granting her over $83 million in damages.

Carroll has not yet collected any awarded funds as Trump’s appeals continue through the court system. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed questions about Carroll’s honesty regarding legal fee arrangements while reviewing one appeal.

Trump’s legal team had alleged Carroll concealed that her attorneys received funding from an organization supported by Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn. The appeals judges found no evidence suggesting Carroll participated in this funding arrangement or deliberately misled questioners during her 2020 deposition about legal fee payments.

“It showed that Ms. Carroll simply was not involved in the matter of who was or was not funding her litigation costs,” the appeals court stated.

A spokesperson for Carroll’s attorney declined to provide comment on Thursday.

WASHINGTON — The former first lady shares candid reflections about her husband’s challenging debate against Donald Trump in her upcoming memoir, questioning whether being more transparent about his condition might have been the better approach instead of offering reassurance to supporters.

The Democratic candidate’s showing during that debate became a turning point in his reelection campaign, heightening worries about whether the then-81-year-old was capable of serving another four years. Facing mounting pressure from his own party, he eventually withdrew from the race and backed his vice president, Kamala Harris, who ultimately fell to the Republican Trump.

Her memoir “View from the East Wing,” chronicling her White House experience and set for release next Tuesday, reveals she remains puzzled by her husband’s struggles during that crucial evening.

The Associated Press secured an advance copy of the 274-page manuscript, which contains her first public remarks about the debate and the subsequent events that led Joe Biden to return to private life in Delaware earlier than planned.

The memoir also discusses his prostate cancer diagnosis following his departure from office and their son Hunter’s federal gun charges trial, along with other matters from Joe Biden’s presidency and how she balanced first lady duties with her teaching responsibilities.

According to Jill Biden, her husband appeared “bleary” in their Atlanta hotel room before the debate. Despite her confidence that he would perform well since major events typically energized him, she noticed problems immediately when the CNN-hosted event started. “I immediately noticed that Joe didn’t look good. He didn’t seem himself from the opening,” she wrote.

Early in the debate, he made an odd comment about “we finally beat Medicare.”

“Is he short-circuiting? I thought,” she documented. “Is this a stroke? It felt like we were watching an AI hologram of the man we knew, and the hologram was glitching.”

She questioned whether he had been given something harmful or was having a medical crisis.

While he showed improvement as the debate continued, “but not enough to reassure me or anyone watching that he was okay. He clearly wasn’t,” Jill Biden explained. “I’d never seen that look on his face before in my life.”

After leaving the stage, he quietly admitted to her using strong language that he had failed, which she interpreted as “a sign of his having returned to himself.”

“To this day, I still don’t know what happened,” she documented. They participated in a post-debate event and visited a Waffle House before heading to North Carolina for the following day’s scheduled appearance.

While the White House and close associates explained at the time that he was battling a cold, Jill Biden now questions whether they should have been honest about what viewers witnessed — “that he looked very unwell in that debate.”

“The biggest lesson for us, I think, was that if you don’t explain something well enough then the question won’t go away,” she noted. “There was never a satisfying enough explanation offered for Joe’s debate performance, and a lot of people never got over it.”

The debate performance confirmed many voters’ worries that he was too advanced in age to continue as president. It triggered renewed demands for him to step aside as the party’s nominee as fellow Democrats worried about a Trump presidency if Biden stayed in the race.

The calls for his withdrawal began before the debate concluded and, “in the days to come, it would grow louder and louder,” Jill Biden documented.

The NAACP has launched an initiative linking Black student athletes to voting rights advocacy through their Out of Bounds campaign. The organization’s President and CEO Derrick Johnson recently spoke about this effort that aims to address voting rights concerns in certain states.

During a conversation with NPR’s Juana Summers, Johnson explained his organization’s strategy that connects athletic participation with voting access issues. The campaign represents the civil rights organization’s latest approach to addressing what they view as threats to electoral participation.

The Out of Bounds initiative specifically focuses on the role of Black student athletes in the broader conversation about voting rights protections across various states.

According to a ProPublica investigation conducted by Robert Faturechi, a White House advisor made a request to the Pentagon seeking approval for funding to a company that produces rare-earth magnets, a business in which Donald Trump Jr. maintains a financial interest.

The investigation reveals that Peter Navarro, who served as a White House adviser, made the request for the Pentagon to approve the loan to the magnet manufacturing company.

WASHINGTON – Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed Thursday that he shared breakfast with Kevin Warsh, the newly appointed Federal Reserve chair.

During a White House press briefing, when a journalist questioned whether Bessent urged Warsh to reduce interest rates, the Treasury Secretary deflected by discussing his previous interactions with former Fed chair Jay Powell.

“I had breakfast with Chair Powell 41 times, and I never did that,” Bessent stated, offering no additional details about the nature of those conversations.

The questioning comes amid a backdrop where President Donald Trump has consistently pushed Powell to cut interest rates during his tenure.

Federal officials have begun preliminary preparations for a commemorative $250 bill bearing Donald Trump’s image, even as the congressional proposal remains stuck in legislative limbo, according to a Treasury Department representative.

The proposed legislation, put forward by Representative Joe Wilson, R-S.C., would instruct the federal bureau responsible for currency production to feature Trump on this new denomination as part of commemorating America’s 250th birthday.

Should the measure become law with Trump’s signature, it would represent an unprecedented honor for a current president and aligns with Trump’s efforts to position himself prominently in the country’s anniversary celebrations. The Treasury Department’s advance planning indicates support for the concept within the current administration.

These developments come after a Washington Post investigation revealed that U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach, appointed by Trump, has been urging the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to accelerate preparations for new currency. The publication also disclosed that the former bureau director was transferred after resisting these efforts.

“In response to active legislation sponsored by Representative Joe Wilson, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) is conducting appropriate planning and due diligence,” the spokeswoman said in a statement to The Associated Press. “Should this legislative mandate be signed into law, the BEP is moving proactively to produce a $250 commemorative note which will appropriately recognize the 250th Anniversary of our great nation.”

Wilson’s proposal, which has yet to advance significantly, aims to establish the high-value note honoring Trump during the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The bill would supersede existing federal statutes that prohibit living persons from appearing on American currency.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who oversees the currency production bureau, is expected at the White House Thursday afternoon and may face questions about this initiative.

Beach declined to respond to AP inquiries for comment.

The Post’s reporting indicated that Beach presented the Bureau of Engraving and Printing with a bill design last autumn. The design incorporated Trump’s likeness — identical to the portrait displayed on banners at various federal facilities in Washington — along with anniversary branding. Trump’s signature would also appear on the currency, a feature that distinguishes it from existing paper money.

British artist Iain Alexander confirmed to the Post that he created the bill design and had conversations about it with the president. Alexander did not reply to AP’s request for comment.

The publication further reported that bureau director Patricia Solimene opposed pressure from Beach and his senior aide Mike Brown, emphasizing the complex legal and administrative requirements for introducing new currency. Solimene has subsequently been reassigned involuntarily, according to the Post, with Brown effectively taking control of the bureau.

The Treasury representative declined to address AP’s inquiries regarding any leadership transitions at the bureau.

This currency initiative would represent another instance of Trump incorporating his personal image into his official role since beginning his 2025 presidential term.

Beach and Bessent have already expedited approval for commemorative 250th anniversary coins featuring Trump. The Treasury Department maintains that these special coins are exempt from restrictions on living presidents appearing on legal tender. During the nation’s 150th anniversary in 1926, then-President Calvin Coolidge was featured on a commemorative half-dollar.

The current administration has installed banners with Trump’s portrait at the Department of Justice and other government buildings. Additionally, his appointees to the Kennedy Center’s governing board have added his name to the national arts venue that Congress originally established as a memorial to assassinated President John F. Kennedy. This renaming faces legal challenges due to federal legislation designating the center as the official memorial to the 35th president.

Current federal regulations specify that only deceased individuals may be depicted on American currency and securities.

Wilson’s legislation would create an exception: “except if the individual is or has been the President of the United States.”

Canada’s Prime Minister delivered a speech Thursday advocating for enhanced cooperation with the United States, speaking just weeks before President Donald Trump makes a decision about extending the free trade agreement between the two nations.

Speaking to the Economic Club of New York, the Prime Minister outlined his vision for what he termed a “true partnership” that would reimagine collaboration in sectors facing challenges from worldwide competition.

His comments came in advance of July’s required evaluation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, known as USMCA.

The Canadian leader explained that his country is expanding its trade relationships beyond America, establishing commercial agreements with numerous nations globally.

“Our core objective across these partnerships is to increase our strategic autonomy. Because we live in a world where integration has been weaponised. Because a country that cannot feed, fuel or defend itself is not truly sovereign,” the Prime Minister stated.

Recent actions by Trump, including initiating trade disputes and floating the idea of Canada joining the US as its 51st state, have angered Canadians and helped create political conditions that may help the Prime Minister secure his position after pledging to stand up to Trump.

The Canadian leader has become a voice for an international effort encouraging nations to build alliances as a counterbalance to US influence under Trump’s leadership. He has established an ambitious target for Canada to increase its exports to non-US markets by 100% over the coming ten years, citing how American trade penalties are discouraging business investment.

“Canada Strong will help make America great again. The examples are legion where we should work together and compete with the world together. And to those ends, we have made specific, practical proposals to the US Administration,” the Prime Minister declared.

While the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement has shielded Canada from the most severe effects of Trump’s trade penalties, the agreement faces upcoming review, and important industries including aluminum and steel have suffered significant damage from tariffs.

The Prime Minister highlighted that Canadian aluminum shipments to America represent energy equivalent to ten Hoover dams, arguing it would be illogical to seek replacement sources.

“With America’s growing energy needs, does it make sense to build the Gigawatts needed to replace Canada?” the Prime Minister questioned.

Regarding automotive trade, he emphasized that Canada represents America’s largest customer, stating that “an integrated North American market for production is the best and most durable way to confront intense global competition.”

The Prime Minister also discussed critical minerals, explaining that Canada’s extensive deposits of potash, nickel, copper and uranium position the country as America’s most dependable supplier for ensuring affordable food production, strengthening national security, and meeting surging demand for powering artificial intelligence systems.

“At a time of a global energy crisis, Canada provides the United States with the reliable power and critical minerals that help fuel American growth: 99% of U.S. natural gas imports, 85% of electricity imports and 60% of crude oil imports,” the Prime Minister noted.

He pointed out that Canada purchases more American products than China, Japan and Germany combined, making it America’s top customer.

“We know that, when Canada and the United States have had our differences over the years, we have always — eventually — worked through them, because our shared values and common interests run deep. They run through our economies,” he explained.

Canada’s minister for U.S. trade, Dominic LeBlanc, plans to travel to Washington next week for discussions. LeBlanc has previously cautioned that the trade agreement might face yearly reviews, suggesting that creating uncertainty could be part of the Trump administration’s strategy.

Multiple musical acts are distancing themselves from a Washington D.C. festival organized by a group connected to President Donald Trump, saying they never agreed to participate despite being publicly announced as performers.

Morris Day and Young MC released social media statements Thursday contradicting Wednesday’s performer announcement from Freedom 250 for “The Great American State Fair” events. Meanwhile, Milli Vanilli vocalist Jodie Rocco informed The Associated Press that neither she, her sister Linda Rocco, nor other band members had been contacted about participating.

“My sister and I were shocked to see our name, ‘Milli Vanilli’, as one of the performers,” Jodie Rocco wrote in an email.

Freedom 250 representatives have not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the disputed lineup. The organization, established by Trump in recent months, calls itself a “national, non-partisan organization leading the celebration of our Nation’s 250th birthday.” Trump selected Keith Krach, who previously served as an under secretary of state during his first administration, to lead the group as CEO.

The music industry has frequently clashed with Trump and his allies, with numerous artists including Celine Dion, Elton John and Guns ‘N Roses protesting the unauthorized use of their songs at Trump campaign events.

Young MC questioned the event’s claimed neutrality in an Instagram message, stating “The artists were never told about any political involvement with the event.” He expressed interest in “perform in D.C. in the near future at an event that is not so politically charged.” Day posted on Instagram that “Contrary to rumor, Morris Day & The Time will not be performing at the ‘GREAT AMERICAN STATE FAIR.’”

The disputed artists were scheduled for an “I Love the 90s” show on June 26, with Day slated for June 27. Additional announced performers include the Commodores, Flo Rida and Martina McBride. The festival is planned for June 25 through July 10.

However, at least one 90s performer confirmed participation: Vanilla Ice.

“He is proud to help celebrate America’s 250th Anniversary!” a representative for the “Ice Ice Baby” performer told the AP via email. “Everyone is welcome to attend and celebrate USA’s Birthday and our Freedom!”

Democratic party officials from five southern states are pushing for South Carolina to maintain its position as the first state to hold presidential primary voting in 2028, contending that the state provides the most effective initial testing ground for White House hopefuls seeking to forge winning coalitions.

Party leaders from Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia sent correspondence Thursday to Democratic National Committee officials, urging them “to do everything in your power to ensure South Carolina continues to serve as the indispensable first proving ground for Democratic presidential nominees.” The DNC is currently considering which states will vote first in the upcoming presidential primary cycle.

These officials maintain South Carolina deserves the opening slot because it “is not simply a geographic starting point. It is a moral and political compass for our party and our nation.”

The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee is conducting meetings this week, listening to presentations from twelve states vying to lead the 2028 calendar. Additional southern states competing for early positions include Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

South Carolina chair Christale Spain, scheduled to present her state’s case Thursday afternoon, has expressed confidence that her state has “more to offer than other states do,” highlighting “the role of Black folks.”

“The fight for voting rights is no longer just a courtroom battle, it is an electoral one,” the Democratic chairs wrote in their letter, which was shared with The Associated Press before public release. “And it begins in South Carolina.”

“Any effort to diminish South Carolina’s role in the primary process would be a step backward for the Democratic Party’s stated commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion,” they continued. “It would signal to Southern Democrats and to Black voters in particular, that their loyalty to this party is taken for granted. We refuse to accept that, and we will stand firmly against it.”

In additional correspondence to DNC leadership, Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus Institute — which has collaborated with the South Carolina Democratic Party on multiple presidential debates previously — echoed similar concerns.

“To remove or diminish South Carolina’s standing in the primary calendar would send precisely the wrong message to Black voters and to every voter who has been told their voice does not matter until after the outcome is already decided,” Thompson stated.

South Carolina has maintained one of the nation’s earliest Democratic primary dates for many years. As the initial southern state to conduct its primary, South Carolina has served as the first measure of candidates’ ability to connect with Black voters, who constitute a significant portion of the state’s Democratic electorate.

During 2020, Joe Biden’s success in appealing to these voters — combined with a key endorsement from Rep. Jim Clyburn, the state’s sole congressional Democrat and formerly the highest-ranking Black Democratic legislator in Congress — enabled him to revitalize a struggling primary campaign, achieve a decisive South Carolina victory, and ultimately claim the nomination.

For the 2024 election cycle, Biden spearheaded a DNC initiative to position South Carolina as the party’s first primary state, emphasizing the state’s greater racial diversity compared to Iowa and New Hampshire, the traditional early-voting states with predominantly white populations. New Hampshire rejected the DNC’s proposal and conducted its own early primary before South Carolina, where Biden — despite not campaigning or appearing on the ballot — won decisively through a supporter-organized write-in effort.

Biden, who also secured a comfortable victory in South Carolina’s 2024 primary, advocated for a restructured primary schedule that placed Nevada second. He also promoted moving Michigan’s Democratic primary — representing a large and diverse battleground state — ahead of Super Tuesday, the early March date when numerous states hold primaries and the majority of delegates required for nomination are awarded.

While the official calendar won’t be finalized until later this summer, potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidates have been actively visiting South Carolina for several months.

Louisiana faces a deadline to create new congressional district boundaries after the U.S. Supreme Court determined its current map constitutes illegal racial gerrymandering. State legislators are now grappling with how to accomplish this redistricting task.

On Thursday, the House examined a proposal that varies from legislation the Senate has already approved. However, both plans from the GOP-controlled legislative chambers would remove a majority-Black district that was central to the Supreme Court’s decision. Each proposal would also create opportunities for Republicans to gain another seat in the upcoming midterm elections.

“We drew the map to improve Republican strength,” state Rep. Beau Beaullieu said while opening Thursday’s debate.

Following the Supreme Court’s late April decision, multiple Southern states have moved quickly to take advantage of a diminished federal Voting Rights Act to redraw their congressional boundaries. This represents the most recent escalation in an intense nationwide redistricting fight leading up to November’s elections, encouraged by President Donald Trump.

Currently, Republicans are prevailing in the redistricting competition. However, this advantage doesn’t guarantee they will control the U.S. House after November. Democrats require only a small number of additional seats to gain chamber control. Trump is dealing with unfavorable approval numbers. Additionally, midterm elections historically result in congressional losses for the sitting president’s party.

In 2022, Louisiana’s Republican-controlled Legislature overturned Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards’ veto to implement new congressional boundaries based on 2020 census data. Under those district lines, five Republicans and one Democrat secured victories in 2022. However, federal courts ruled the map violated the Voting Rights Act by failing to create a second district with a majority-Black population.

The Legislature addressed this in 2024 by establishing a second majority-Black district that extended over 200 miles (321 kilometers) northwest from Baton Rouge to Shreveport. This configuration led to the election of Democratic U.S. Rep. Cleo Fields. Yet this map also faced legal challenges, and the Supreme Court overturned it as an unlawful racial gerrymander.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry has delayed the state’s May 16 congressional primary until later in the summer to provide time for another redistricting effort. The state House and Senate are attempting to reach agreement on a plan before their session concludes on Monday.

Beaullieu explained that Republicans rejected a map designed to capture all six of the state’s U.S. House seats because it would have necessitated incorporating more Democratic voters into Republican-held districts, potentially creating problems by threatening the reelection chances of House Speaker Mike Johnson or Majority Leader Steve Scalise.

Louisiana legislative committees have received extensive public testimony from citizens opposing the Republican redistricting proposals.

On Wednesday, Democratic state House leaders from Georgia and Texas joined their Louisiana counterparts to demonstrate regional unity and opposition to Republican redistricting initiatives.

Georgia House Minority Leader Carolyn Hugley characterized Louisiana’s attempt to eliminate one of its two majority-Black districts as regression for Black Americans across the South.

Historically, “the government was used as a weapon against our community. It used the law, it used courts, it used maps to make sure that people who look like me would never have real representation, that we would never be heard, that we would be present but never powerful,” said Hugley, who is Black. She continued, “Republicans are redrawing voting maps to lock in one-party control.”

Democratic state Rep. Edmond Jordan, who chairs the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus, indicated the congressional district dispute would return to the courts once lawmakers approve a new map.

“We are going to continue to fight for the African Americans, not only of this state but throughout the whole country,” Jordan said.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling one month ago, several Southern states have already taken redistricting action.

Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature approved new congressional districts within hours of the ruling, finishing a redrawing process that was already underway in anticipation of the decision. A state judge this week refused to prevent the use of those districts, which could provide Republicans with up to four additional seats in the midterm elections.

Tennessee enacted new U.S. House districts one week after the ruling, dividing a majority-Black district centered in Memphis as part of a Republican effort to secure an additional seat.

Alabama also tried to modify its congressional districts, though a federal judicial panel this week stopped a Republican-drawn map that it found intentionally discriminates against Black people. The state’s Republican attorney general has requested that the U.S. Supreme Court allow the map to be used this year. Republican Gov. Kay Ivey also extended a deadline to certify candidates for an Aug. 11 special congressional primary from Friday to next Wednesday, hoping the Supreme Court will render a decision by then.

Despite pressure from Trump, South Carolina’s Senate this week chose against congressional redistricting. Some senators argued it was too late to implement changes since in-person early voting had already begun. Other Republican lawmakers expressed concerns that the plan might backfire by enabling Democrats to win more seats.

Mexican diplomatic offices across the United States are facing potential closure following a State Department evaluation that has sparked concern among immigrant communities nationwide.

The Los Angeles Mexican consulate alone assists thousands of citizens weekly with birth registrations, passport applications, and increasingly, legal assistance for family members caught up in current immigration enforcement actions since President Donald Trump’s second term commenced.

While all 53 Mexican diplomatic offices throughout the U.S. deliver essential services to Mexican nationals — similar to how nine American consulates in Mexico serve U.S. citizens there — federal officials have begun an assessment that could lead to an undisclosed number of closures.

The State Department has not provided specific reasoning for the evaluation, though it occurs during intensified immigration crackdowns, challenging bilateral disputes, and conservative allegations that these diplomatic offices have meddled in American politics while promoting northward migration.

Azucena Aviles, a 33-year-old mother who traveled over an hour to the Los Angeles facility this month for passport services, emphasized the importance of consular assistance, particularly in California where nearly 13 million residents claim Mexican heritage, including approximately 1.7 million without legal status.

“It wouldn’t be fair if they messed with the Mexican people, especially with our support systems, which come from the Mexican consulate and which, in some way, help or protect our fellow Mexicans,” she said.

Trump has intensified pressure on Mexico, raising concerns about human rights, national sovereignty, and regional diplomacy.

However, his administration has offered only general explanations for initiating the evaluation.

“Department of State is constantly reviewing all aspects of American foreign relations to ensure they are in line with the President’s America First foreign policy agenda and advance American interests,” Dylan Johnson, Assistant Secretary of State for Global Public Affairs, wrote in an email.

The review might connect to the Trump administration’s immigration initiatives targeting deportations of undocumented individuals. Mexicans represent the largest group among such people — approximately 4.3 million according to the Pew Research Center.

Bilateral tensions could also influence the decision, as Trump escalates pressure on Mexico before crucial free trade discussions vital to both economies, adopting more aggressive policies toward America’s southern neighbor and even threatening military action against Mexican cartels.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has avoided direct confrontations with Trump, instead pursuing diplomatic solutions including dispatching senior officials to Washington and maintaining positive relations through cartel crackdowns. Sheinbaum and her predecessor have also assisted in reducing migration to the U.S. and accelerating deportations of other Latin American migrants.

Yet Sheinbaum has taken stronger positions regarding Mexican deaths in U.S. immigration facilities, calling them “unacceptable” and stating detention conditions were “incompatible with human rights standards and the protection of life.” She directed Mexican consulates to conduct daily detention center visits ensuring citizens face safe conditions.

Diplomatic relations deteriorated recently after U.S. indictments of several Mexican officials on drug trafficking charges, and two CIA officers died during an anti-narcotics operation in northern Mexico — American involvement that Sheinbaum said her government hadn’t authorized. The drug raid raised uncomfortable questions in Mexico about U.S. involvement in domestic security operations. Years of reciprocal tariffs between both countries have also increased tensions.

Foreign consulate reviews typically signal “a bilateral relationship is in a very, very rocky moment,” said Arturo Sarukhan, a former Mexican ambassador to the U.S. For Mexico, it arrives at “the worst moment of the U.S.-Mexico relations” in decades, considering current disagreements, he noted.

Adding strain is a theory promoted by Peter Schweizer, a writer popular among Trump supporters who claims Mexican consulates interfere in U.S. politics and encourage migration. Experts say while some Mexican consulate officials may have attempted influencing domestic politics, no evidence exists of U.S. election interference.

Responding to the State Department review, Sheinbaum called the notion that Mexican consulates are “playing politics in the United States is completely false.” She stated consulates everywhere exist to “always protect” citizens.

Sarukhan also said while consulates defend Mexican citizens’ rights, no evidence supports claims of U.S. election interference.

Regardless of motivations behind the consulate evaluation, it has generated anxiety.

During a weekly public session at the Los Angeles consulate, an unnamed woman whose husband was in U.S. immigration detention requested help finding legal representation, demonstrating crucial services consulates provide citizens.

An elderly man mentioned hearing about the review and inquired about potential closures.

Carlos González Gutiérrez, Mexico’s senior diplomat in Los Angeles, responded that, as Sheinbaum indicated, there would be “no reason whatsoever” for the U.S. to close a Mexican consulate.

Closing consulates “would have significant, devastating effects for Mexican immigrants,” especially in remote areas, Ariel Ruiz Soto, a senior policy analyst for the Migration Policy Institute, told The Associated Press.

Daily, consular officials visit the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in downtown Los Angeles to identify and interview detained Mexican nationals.

González Gutiérrez, 62, opens each weekly public session by reporting how many detained Mexicans consular officials have interviewed since last June’s Los Angeles immigration crackdown. At the May 11 meeting, the number reached 1,940. Nearly half maintained deep U.S. connections, he said. About 46% have been deported, 35% have U.S.-born children, 69% entered through official ports, 6% overstayed visas, and 2.5% sought asylum. Most were men working in construction, agriculture, landscaping and service industries.

He also challenged claims that Mexican consulates interfere in U.S. politics.

“We are guests of this country’s government, just as U.S. consuls are guests of the Mexican government. In that sense, we are neither activists nor spies,” said González Gutiérrez, who has served similar roles at other Mexican consulates in the U.S. “We carry out our work openly, within a pluralistic and democratic society.”

The Trump administration has launched federal court challenges against four states that have refused to provide undercover license plates to federal immigration enforcement agents, marking another battleground in ongoing tensions between the White House and states led by Democratic officials.

Federal prosecutors filed separate legal actions on Wednesday targeting Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington state, claiming these jurisdictions have created unconstitutional barriers that hamper law enforcement operations and put federal agents at risk.

“By denying undercover license plates to DHS components, including ICE, while issuing them to their own state agencies, these governors are pursuing discriminatory and obstructionist policies against federal law enforcement,” said acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in a statement.

“These actions undermine federal immigration enforcement, allow dangerous criminals to escape justice, and terrorize American communities,” Blanche added.

The federal lawsuits were submitted to U.S. district courts in each affected state. The legal filings accuse the four state administrations of attempting “to obstruct the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement efforts, even though control over immigration and the nation’s borders is an exclusive federal power.”

Federal attorneys also contend in their court papers that the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause prevents state governments from interfering with federal law enforcement activities.

A spokesperson for Massachusetts Attorney General Joy Campbell said the state’s lawyers are “reviewing the complaint and will defend the RMV policy to the greatest extent possible.”

Representatives from other states have supported their policies but had not immediately responded to requests for comment regarding the federal legal action.

The federal government maintains that its agents “frequently investigate and apprehend violent criminals, including cartel members, gang members, sex offenders, human traffickers, and other violent offenders” and argues that making those officers easily recognizable exposes them to greater harassment and potential violence.

The legal challenge follows previous exchanges between federal prosecutors and state leadership. The federal government had earlier sent correspondence to state officials requiring them to explain their policies.

Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey responded to the Justice Department last week, supporting his state’s approach and challenging the federal agency’s claim that it has interfered with enforcement operations.

“Rather, the program reflects a legitimate and constitutional policy choice by the SOS not to allow its resources to be commandeered by the federal government for use in civil immigration enforcement activities that have, in Maine and elsewhere, resulted in multiple incidents of abusive and unconstitutional conduct by DHS officials,” Frey wrote.

Shenna Bellows, Maine’s secretary of state, announced a pause on confidential license plates in January, after federal authorities ramped up their immigration enforcement activities in the state. Bellows said at the time that the state wanted to be “assured that Maine plates will not be used for lawless purposes.”

The federal suit against Maine argues that the state “has issued confidential license plates to law enforcement agencies for many years” and that “such plates are explicitly authorized under Maine law.” The state’s review this year, the suit argues, resulted in unlawful state regulation of the federal government by requiring federal applicants for state license plates to attest that federal vehicles that obtained confidential plates would not be used for civil immigration enforcement. The suit also states that Maine did not impose commensurate requirements on state or local agencies applying for the plates, making the program discriminatory against the federal government.

Bellows said last week that she anticipated the lawsuit.

“When ICE asked for confidential license plates, I said no. We don’t have secret police in a democracy, and covert civil immigration enforcement is not something Maine will facilitate. If the DOJ wants to sue us over that, we’ll see them in court,” Bellows said in a May 22 statement.

The Trump administration’s arguments on the license plates are similar to its defense of federal agents wearing masks on their deployments to American cities. That became a flashpoint in an extended government shutdown over Department of Homeland Security funding, as Democrats on Capitol Hill demanded key changes to how Trump’s mass deportation plans were carried out after masked federal agents killed two U.S. citizen protesters in Minnesota.

The White House and DHS have maintained the agency’s mask policy, and the administration already has won a federal court order blocking a California law that barred law enforcement officials from covering their faces in the state.

Additionally, the administration has been at odds with so-called sanctuary cities where local law enforcement does not assist federal authorities with immigration enforcement. And Blanche has instructed the Justice Department’s Civil Division to identify all state and local laws, policies, and practices that could impede what the administration describes as “lawful federal operations.”

MACKINAC ISLAND, Mich. — Michigan’s Democratic governor has definitively ended speculation surrounding a possible 2028 White House run, announcing Thursday that she will not pursue the presidency after her term concludes at year’s end.

Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan had been considered by many within her party as a potential presidential candidate following her strong electoral performances in a key swing state that Republican Donald Trump has won in two presidential elections. Despite months of speculation, she had previously given only vague responses regarding her future political plans.

During a Thursday interview with Fox 2 Detroit, she provided her most definitive statement to date.

“I think there will be a robust group of people running for president. I will not be one of them in 2028,” Whitmer said.

The governor made these remarks while attending Michigan’s yearly Mackinac policy conference, where she was scheduled to receive recognition and speak later in the day.

Previously, she had indicated plans to take time considering her next political steps.

“I don’t know that I’ll put my name on the ballot again. I’m just not sure,” Whitmer said at an April breakfast in Detroit. “But I also am 54 years old. I got a lot of gas in the tank.”

The Mackinac conference has emerged as a center for presidential political discussions, with former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin — both viewed as potential 2028 candidates — also participating in the event.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Treasury Department announced Thursday it is eliminating 76 individuals, ships and organizations from its sanctions blacklist, describing the entries as outdated in an effort designed to enhance enforcement against more complex and dangerous targets.

According to the department, businesses had expressed concerns about having to dedicate substantial resources to screening low-risk targets. Some of these targets included financial networks that no longer operate, or individuals who had passed away.

“Treasury is exploring ways to relieve that burden while helping to prioritize more impactful activities to implement sanctions, including scrutinizing for sanctions evasion,” the department stated in an announcement regarding the removal of entities from the Specially Designated Nationals list.

Sanctions targeting nations including Venezuela, Iran, Syria and Russia have expanded significantly in recent years. The Treasury Department reported that annual new additions to the list jumped from 880 in 2017 to over 3,000 in 2024.

Democratic candidates in Michigan are working to maintain control of an available U.S. Senate position while their party attempts to regain congressional power in Washington. However, internal disagreements must be resolved first.

Three leading contenders for the nomination will participate in a debate Thursday during the state party’s yearly policy gathering on August 4th. This represents a significant early chance for the candidates to highlight their differences to voters statewide.

As primary elections conclude nationwide, Michigan’s competitive race has become viewed as an indicator of the party’s direction heading into November’s general election and future campaigns.

Taking the stage will be U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, and former public health official Abdul El-Sayed. Their Republican opponent is Mike Rogers, a former congressman who lost the 2024 Senate race to Democrat Elissa Slotkin. Democrat Gary Peters is not seeking a third Senate term this year. No Michigan Republican has been elected to the U.S. Senate since 1994.

A difficult primary battle for a crucial Senate position was not what Democrats had hoped for.

Thursday’s debate will highlight the philosophical splits that have challenged Democrats since presidential nominee Kamala Harris and the party experienced major defeats in 2024.

Stevens, serving her fourth congressional term representing an area near Detroit, is viewed as the more centrist, establishment-backed option. She has received support from senators in competitive states, including Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada. Stevens has described herself as a “staunchly pro-Israel Democrat.”

El-Sayed has positioned himself as the progressive choice, receiving early support from U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. El-Sayed has advocated for “Medicare for All” and increased taxes on wealthy individuals, while characterizing Israel’s actions in Gaza as a “genocide.” He has faced criticism, including from party members, for appearing with controversial streamer Hasan Piker.

McMorrow won her first Michigan Senate election in 2018 and received national recognition for speeches criticizing Republicans. She has established herself between her two primary competitors. She has questioned the Democratic establishment and stated she would not back New York’s Chuck Schumer for Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate again.

Rogers was defeated by then-U.S. Rep. Slotkin by less than 20,000 votes in a state that Republican Donald Trump won while securing a second presidential term.

Rogers will not have the advantage of Trump leading the ticket this time. However, Rogers enters the general election with his own benefits, including facing no primary opposition.

During a Wednesday phone conversation, Rogers recognized the previous campaign’s challenges, noting that the financial disadvantage following a difficult primary “made it really difficult” to succeed in the general election.

However, he emphasized this year presents different circumstances.

“This is a change election. People want to talk about Washington. This is about Michigan,” Rogers said.

Focusing on local issues may prove challenging in a race influenced by national concerns like tariffs and gas prices, both significantly affecting Michigan. External spending is anticipated to reach nine figures. The Republicans’ U.S. Senate campaign organization has allocated $45 million for advertisements, while Democrats have committed $20 million.

“They’re going to spend a lot of money trying to make you not like me. We’re going to spend our money trying to tell people what we’re going to do for them and make their lives in our state better,” Rogers said.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors have launched a perjury probe targeting E. Jean Carroll, the advice columnist who alleges Donald Trump sexually assaulted her at a Manhattan department store three decades ago, a source with knowledge of the matter revealed.

The source, who was not permitted to speak publicly about the active investigation, disclosed the inquiry on condition of anonymity. Chicago-based federal prosecutors are spearheading the perjury probe, while acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has recused himself due to his previous role as Trump’s personal attorney, the source explained.

Carroll’s legal team did not respond immediately to Associated Press requests for comment Thursday.

This marks another in a string of probes launched by the Trump administration Justice Department targeting individuals viewed as presidential opponents. These moves, which include last month’s indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, have sparked concern among Democrats and former officials who worry about the politicization of an agency designed to operate independently from White House influence.

According to Carroll’s account, what began as a playful, accidental meeting with Trump in 1996 at Bergdorf Goodman’s Fifth Avenue location turned violent. She alleges Trump pushed her against a dressing room wall, yanked down her tights and sexually assaulted her. Trump has dismissed these claims as a “made-up scam.”

In 2023, a jury determined Trump was liable for sexually abusing Carroll in 1996, ordering him to pay $5 million in damages. A separate jury the next year awarded Carroll $83.3 million in a defamation lawsuit stemming from Trump’s social media posts attacking her.

A recent court filing indicated Trump can postpone payment of the award pending U.S. Supreme Court review or rejection of his appeal. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Trump’s legal team’s request to delay payment to Carroll, though it mandated he post a $7.4 million bond to cover potential additional interest costs, as Carroll’s attorney had requested.

CNN initially reported on the Carroll investigation.

A Washington federal judge has refused to stop President Donald Trump’s executive order that would establish a federal voter registry and restrict mail-in voting, allowing the controversial directive to proceed as midterm elections approach.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was appointed by Trump, turned down the emergency request late Wednesday from Democrats and civil rights organizations. The groups had contended that Trump’s directive would likely violate the Constitution since states and Congress, rather than the president, hold authority over election procedures. Nichols sided with the Trump administration’s argument that it was premature to block the order since no implementation has begun.

“The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws,” Nichols wrote. “Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.”

The court fight now moves to Boston, where voting rights advocates have filed another federal lawsuit challenging the executive order.

Trump signed the directive in March following congressional stalling of a voting reform bill he had backed. The order would establish a federal registry of qualified voters and instruct the U.S. Postal Service to mail ballots exclusively to individuals on that registry. Election administrators have warned the plan could lead to widespread problems and potential misuse.

Following his 2020 election defeat to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims about mail voting fraud and initiated a federal probe into that election, despite numerous audits and reviews, including Republican-led ones, confirming no significant fraud occurred. Trump has also expressed intentions to “take over” election oversight in Democratic regions.

Democrats and civil rights advocates had pressed Nichols for an immediate restraining order, citing the ongoing primary season and states’ preparations for November midterm contests.

This marks Trump’s second executive directive aimed at election reform. His first election order, signed early in his second term, remains blocked by several federal judges. That initial directive sought to mandate documentary citizenship proof for voter registration, along with additional requirements.

WASHINGTON — What was expected to be straightforward passage of a roughly $70 billion immigration enforcement funding measure for the remainder of President Donald Trump’s administration has hit unexpected snags for Republicans.

The legislation has encountered delays due to disputes over White House ballroom security funding included in the package and the establishment of a $1.8 billion fund for government mistreatment claims. This setback has not only postponed action on a key GOP priority but is also casting doubt on other elements of the party’s legislative plans, including the possibility of passing another comprehensive party-line measure known in Washington as “Reconciliation 3.0.”

In recent weeks, Republicans have been building the foundation for such legislation, viewing it as a crucial final appeal to voters ahead of the midterm elections.

Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise, both from Louisiana, have been conducting meetings with committee and caucus leaders to evaluate proposals that have solid support from party members. They aim to build on last summer’s major tax and spending reduction bill with legislation that would boost Pentagon funding by hundreds of billions while implementing cuts in other areas to offset costs, which they describe as addressing government waste and fraud.

This represents a significant political risk during an election year. A successful outcome would strengthen the GOP’s narrative of delivering on legislative commitments. A failure would highlight Republican divisions under Trump that might prompt voters to consider alternatives.

Johnson successfully guided the House GOP’s narrow majority through Trump’s tax and spending cuts legislation last summer with a 218-214 vote. Republicans could only afford to lose three votes from their own party at that time, and they lost just two.

While facing another tight margin for error, Johnson expressed greater confidence about success this time.

“It will be just as beautiful, but not as big, so it’ll have less provisions and less things to get everybody to yes on,” he stated.

Rep. Jodey Arrington, who chairs the House Budget Committee, indicated Republicans maintain the same level of motivation they had for last year’s tax cuts measure.

“This one, I think you’ll have potentially money to support our troops in conflict,” said the Texas representative. “I can’t imagine a Republican not wanting to support our troops and military community in a time of conflict.”

The Trump administration has requested that Republicans allocate $350 billion for defense through a reconciliation bill.

However, Rep. Brendan Boyle, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, believes Republicans will face greater challenges than they encountered with Trump’s major tax and spending cuts legislation.

“I think it will be for a couple of reasons. First is the president’s approval rating. He was at a much higher level a year ago than he is right now,” said the Pennsylvania representative. “Number 2, we are much closer to the November midterm elections. So, if you’re one of a dozen or a couple dozen House Republicans who are really vulnerable in a swing district, you have to think even more carefully about voting for something that has even more health care cuts in it.”

Last summer’s tax cuts bill decreased Medicaid spending by over $900 billion across ten years and reduced nutrition assistance spending by approximately $187 billion over the same period, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune described a third reconciliation bill to bypass the filibuster as a “potential option,” offering lukewarm support at best.

“We haven’t made any commitments on that, but we’re hearing people out,” said the South Dakota senator.

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina emphasized that lawmakers should understand the bill’s contents before beginning the legislative process to prevent it from falling apart.

“If it just becomes another exercise where you’re not really sure what’s going to be the end product, then I think it’s a mistake even to pursue it,” Tillis stated. “We ought to be smart about it if we do a third one, but it is kind of a moonshot.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska expressed skepticism about the approach.

“A third reconciliation may or may not happen. I’m just being direct,” she said.

The House is scheduled to remain in session for approximately 24 additional days before the August recess begins. This provides limited time to pass a budget framework in both chambers, which serves as the initial requirement for pursuing party-line tax and spending legislation. Committees would also need to complete their work on advancing their sections of the bill.

Another obstacle could be Trump’s treatment of current senators whose support he needs for any package to become law. Trump backed challengers against two senators who faced difficult primary contests and ultimately lost — Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and John Cornyn of Texas.

Cassidy has already demonstrated increased willingness to oppose the president. Following his primary defeat, he voted last week to advance legislation seeking to force Trump to withdraw from hostilities with Iran.

Lawmakers indicated they could modify and revive some proposals that the Senate parliamentarian rejected for inclusion in last year’s reconciliation bill. For instance, Republicans attempted to prevent states from extending Medicaid coverage to immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

Rep. August Pfluger of Texas, who chairs the Republican Study Committee, said the bill should be built on three foundations: making the country more affordable and secure while reducing fraud.

The group’s recommendations include eliminating capital gains taxes on home sales to first-time buyers to stimulate the market, and implementing a 5% tax on funds sent by noncitizens to their home countries.

Arrington said he would also like to strengthen requirements for the earned income tax credit, a program that increases financial benefits for working but has a high rate of improper payments. He also advocated for preventing immigrants in the U.S. illegally from residing in housing units financed by housing tax credits provided to developers who build and renovate affordable rental housing.

“There’s a lot more work to be done to build on what we did in the first one with Medicaid and SNAP (nutrition assistance), with respect to fraud,” Arrington said.

A politician in Ohio is throwing support behind proposed legislation known as the Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act, which would allow educators to include instruction about how religion has influenced American historical events.

Those who oppose the measure argue that it presents a one-sided perspective on historical events that has the potential to create controversy and division among students and communities.

NEW YORK – Former President Donald Trump submitted a revised defamation lawsuit on Wednesday demanding at least $10 billion in damages from the Wall Street Journal regarding their coverage of his connections to Jeffrey Epstein, following a federal judge’s dismissal of his original complaint due to legal shortcomings.

The legal action represents one of multiple lawsuits Trump has initiated in his individual capacity targeting news organizations, which critics characterize as part of a broader effort to pressure media outlets.

Trump’s legal filing alleges the Rupert Murdoch-owned publication damaged his standing through an article that depicted a birthday card to the deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as containing Trump’s signature. Trump and his legal team maintain the card is fraudulent, despite its release by lawmakers conducting an investigation into Epstein’s case.

The revised lawsuit seeks at least $10 billion in damages, matching the amount requested in the previous filing.

“At the time of publication, Defendants recklessly disregarded whether the Defamatory Statements were true and/or they purposefully avoided the discovery of the truth,” Trump’s attorneys stated in the updated complaint.

The legal action, submitted in Miami federal court, identifies Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones, News Corp and its CEO Robert Thomson, plus two Wall Street Journal reporters, Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo, as defendants. The lawsuit claims they defamed Trump and caused him to experience “overwhelming” financial and reputational damage.

Dow Jones has stated it maintains complete confidence in the thoroughness and precision of the Journal’s journalism and plans to vigorously contest the lawsuit.

Epstein, the disgraced financier and sex offender, passed away in a New York detention facility in 2019. His situation spawned conspiracy theories that gained traction among Trump’s supporter base, who suspected the government was concealing Epstein’s connections to wealthy and influential individuals. Trump has stated he ended his relationship with Epstein before the financier’s legal problems became public knowledge in 2006.

U.S. District Court Judge Darrin P. Gayles, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, dismissed Trump’s initial complaint in April. The judge determined Trump had not satisfied the “actual malice” legal requirement for public figures in defamation cases, which demands evidence that a defendant published information they knew or should have known was false.

Trump has also initiated defamation and other legal actions against additional media organizations, including the New York Times, the BBC and Iowa’s Des Moines Register. These outlets have rejected wrongdoing allegations and are contesting the cases in court.

Trump’s administration has moved to limit press access to government agencies and threatened to employ regulatory authority against critical outlets, prompting legal challenges from media organizations.

The White House has characterized Trump as the most transparent and available U.S. president in history, claiming his administration has expanded press access in unprecedented ways.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California’s crowded gubernatorial primary has Democratic voters struggling to make their choice as the election approaches its final stretch.

Despite voting starting in early May before the June 2 primary election, Democratic voters have been slower than usual to submit their ballots following a turbulent campaign season filled with unexpected developments. This gubernatorial contest differs from previous ones, lacking a clear leading candidate or celebrity figure comparable to Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger or Democrat Jerry Brown in past races.

“I’m kind of pinching my nose and voting this go-around rather than being excited,” said Colin Culver, a 21-year-old San Diego resident who ultimately voted for Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund manager turned climate activist.

The confusion among Democratic voters stems partly from California’s top-two primary format, which puts all candidates on one ballot without regard to party affiliation. Approximately 60 candidates are competing to replace the termed-out Democratic governor. The field features six major Democratic contenders and only two well-known Republicans.

Due to the large Democratic field, party officials worried months earlier that the two leading Republican candidates, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, might both advance to the general election, eliminating Democrats entirely. This possibility became less probable after former Rep. Eric Swalwell withdrew from the race following sexual assault allegations, though the controversy added to Democratic voters’ unease. President Donald Trump’s April endorsement of Hilton may have unified Republican voters behind him and reduced chances of a Republican surprise in a state that last elected a Republican governor in 2011.

However, voter anxiety persists. Some Democrats are delaying their vote submissions, hoping one candidate will emerge as the clear choice in the final days, using polling data to guide their decisions. Others have found it challenging to decide, reluctantly selecting a candidate after finding the entire field underwhelming.

Even typically reliable Democratic primary voters — usually older, white constituents — have been hesitant to submit their ballots, according to Paul Mitchell, a Democratic strategist who monitors ballot returns.

“My joke is: Call your Democratic parents and tell them to turn in their ballot,” he said. “They are holding onto the ballot because they have seen this kind of topsy-turvy governor’s race. They’re waiting to make sure they’re making the right choice.”

As of Wednesday, approximately 10% of the state’s roughly 23 million registered voters had cast ballots, based on Mitchell’s tracking system. This includes about 15% of Republicans, 10% of Democrats, and 7% of unaffiliated or third-party voters. This pattern is atypical, as Democrats have historically voted early in recent elections while Republicans typically wait until Election Day.

Among the leading Democratic candidates voters are considering are former state attorney general and federal Health secretary Xavier Becerra and Steyer.

A mid-May survey by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that Becerra and Hilton each garnered support from approximately 2 in 10 likely California primary voters. Steyer, Bianco, and former Congresswoman Katie Porter each received backing from 10% to 15% of likely voters in the poll. No other candidates reached double-digit support.

Becerra’s support has grown significantly from just 5% in a PPIC survey conducted in late March and early April, when Swalwell remained in the race.

Some voters are making their decisions independent of polling data. San Francisco native Mary O’Neal chose former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa based on her approval of his leadership record from 2005 to 2013. Despite participating in debates, he has struggled to build substantial support.

Fresno native Alexa Duran, 22, a recent University of California, Berkeley graduate, said she’s considering Becerra, though she has reservations about his decision as attorney general not to investigate the 2020 killing of a Latino man by a police officer in the San Francisco Bay Area.

“I know he has tons of political experience, but I’m just not sure if he’s the right candidate,” Duran said.

Amber Larson, 41, a judicial analyst for the state living in Chico, favors Ramsey Robinson, a socialist candidate. However, she believes voting for him would be a “waste” given his minimal chances of success.

She’s reluctant to support a career politician like Becerra and has doubts about billionaire candidates like Steyer.

“Are we at a point where only a billionaire can beat an establishment, career politician?” Larson said, referencing Steyer spending millions to largely self-fund his campaign.

Despite her reservations, she planned to vote for Steyer because she supports his energy affordability proposals and recognizes him as one of the frontrunners.

“I don’t want to throw my vote away,” she said.

The organization that gained national attention for documenting anti-Asian incidents during the pandemic is now focusing its efforts on voter engagement through a new political initiative.

Stop AAPI Hate has established Stop AAPI Hate Action, a separate nonprofit designed to increase Asian American and Pacific Islander voter registration and turnout at polling stations. The creation of this political advocacy branch comes as a response to President Donald Trump’s actions and Republican legislative efforts to modify electoral districts and weaken portions of the Voting Rights Act.

The group revealed Thursday that this new venture will leverage Stop AAPI Hate’s established reputation for highlighting issues of racism, discrimination and community solidarity. This represents a significant expansion for the organization, which has engaged in policy development and advocacy activities for six years, according to co-founder Manjusha Kulkarni, who spoke exclusively with The Associated Press.

“Those pieces — alongside what we’re seeing from our community in terms of data — really motivated and inspired us to make this move,” Kulkarni said. “Because we see how our communities are being harmed and exactly what needs to be done to address the harm, and prevent it in the future.”

The new organization has been structured as a social welfare entity, allowing leadership to participate in political campaign activities within specific legal boundaries.

Research from an AAPI Data/AP-NORC poll indicates that most Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders view President Donald Trump’s immigration and border security policies during his second term as more detrimental than beneficial.

The organization’s yearly assessment, published during AAPI Heritage Month in May, revealed that approximately half of AAPI adults reported that either they or someone in their personal circle experienced negative consequences from immigration policies or anti-immigrant sentiment in 2025. During the previous year, Trump enacted restrictions on H-1B visa recipients — many of whom originate from Asian nations — and imposed a $100,000 yearly charge for highly skilled international workers.

Additionally, Chinese citizens encounter numerous anti-China regulations across different states.

Navia Gutta, 28, was disturbed by an incident that occurred last summer at a Chipotle location in Atlanta, where a woman confronted her and a companion, labeling the two Indian Americans as “murderers” and “rapists.” The situation intensified when the woman threatened to contact U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to send them “back” to India, which she described as a “dirty country.” Both individuals were born in the United States.

“Our hands were shaking and we full-on cried in the car,” Gutta said. “It made me realize that I grew up still very privileged, and I felt like I lived in a bubble up until then, because nothing like that had ever happened to me.”

She subsequently reported the incident to Stop AAPI Hate, and after extensive conversations with a staff member, was motivated to volunteer with the organization.

“It made me realize I would love to be a part of this solution,” Gutta said. “I would love to educate people. I would look at these issues and continue educating myself further because I think politics can be really scary.”

Stop AAPI Hate Action is preparing to actively participate in the November midterm elections. However, this doesn’t involve automatically endorsing all Democratic candidates, Kulkarni explained. The organization’s primary objective is backing candidates who align with fundamental principles regarding immigration policy and civil rights.

“It is really, at its core, about harnessing the pain felt at an individual level and turning it into a collective power,” Kulkarni said. “This really has been an existential threat to our community.”

The organization also seeks to avoid competing with or replicating existing AAPI-centered civic participation groups. Their strategy extends beyond traditionally blue states and battleground areas. A key objective involves converting red districts with substantial Asian American populations to blue. There are regions in Republican-controlled states “that deserve to be reached out to,” according to Andy Wong, Stop AAPI Hate Action managing director of advocacy.

“The ones in Iowa and Nebraska and Alaska and other places where there are competitive purple districts — many of them with GOP incumbents,” Wong said. “We are going to reach voters in those places,” by recruiting phone bank volunteers fluent in Korean, Vietnamese, Cantonese and Mandarin.

This outreach campaign begins in July, with plans to target individuals who typically vote only during major general elections. To establish connections, they intend to pair volunteers with voters sharing similar ethnic backgrounds.

This new political organization is designed for long-term impact rather than short-term results, according to Stop AAPI Hate personnel. The Asian American and Pacific Islander demographic represents one of the most rapidly expanding populations in the United States, creating opportunities for new voter recruitment with each election cycle.

However, political parties have ignored this reality and failed to invest in voter outreach and civic engagement efforts, Kulkarni noted. “We’ve really been an afterthought. We’re 24 million people.”

Stop AAPI Hate views the coming years as a chance not only to attract voters but also to strengthen AAPI influence as a unified voting constituency. Kulkarni references data suggesting that Latino, Black and Asian Americans who shifted rightward during the 2024 election are moving back toward the left.

“Where you see that especially is the South Asian or Indian American community specifically. You’ve seen that in some of the others, in the Japanese American community,” she said. “How do we harness that?”

The organization must establish infrastructure to maintain engagement beyond major election periods, Wong emphasized. They also aim to support Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders already active in their communities to develop leadership roles in their areas.

“They’re putting in the phone calls. They’re showing up at public hearings, delivering comments,” Wong said. “It’s about building long-term civic and political power.”

HOUSTON (AP) — Democratic candidate James Talarico kicked off his general election bid for the U.S. Senate on Wednesday by characterizing his Republican challenger, state Attorney General Ken Paxton, as a member of a dishonest political system that prioritizes personal gain over public service.

The Democrat has provided his party with their strongest opportunity in recent years to capture a Senate seat in Texas and has improved their challenging prospects of regaining control of the U.S. Senate this November. Talarico, a former educator and state representative from Austin, outlined his campaign approach for the coming months: highlighting Paxton’s ethical controversies to frustrated voters.

“Ken Paxton is the most corrupt politician in America,” Talarico addressed approximately 1,000 supporters gathered at a downtown Houston dance club. “He has failed the character test. He has put his own interests above the laws of Texas. Those are not my words, those are the words of Ken Paxton’s fellow Republicans.”

The candidate also connected what he described as the “rot” within the country’s political framework to daily challenges facing ordinary citizens, emphasizing concerns about increasing expenses that have become central to Democratic messaging for this year’s midterm elections.

“In America, we have an affordability crisis because we have a corruption crisis,” Talarico declared to the audience.

This represented a dramatic shift from the more optimistic, faith-based messaging of Talarico’s Democratic primary race. He is now embracing the same criticisms of Paxton that Republican Senate leadership worried would make the attorney general a less viable candidate than Sen. John Cornyn, whom Paxton defeated in Tuesday’s Republican runoff.

The varied Houston crowd carried signs displaying “Talarico,” featuring a new element. The reverse side showcased the campaign’s updated slogan: “THE PEOPLE vs. KEN PAXTON.”

Designed like legal proceedings targeting the state’s top law enforcement official, this theme debuted on the three-year anniversary of Paxton’s impeachment on charges that he misused his position to assist a wealthy political contributor.

Paxton received acquittals on all 20 impeachment charges, which has strengthened his confidence and energized his base. Many supporters have consistently maintained that both he and President Donald Trump, who backed him, have been subjected to political targeting.

However, the messaging appeared to connect with attendees at Talarico’s event.

Monique Green, a retired Houston elementary school educator, explained that the most significant aspect of “The People vs. Ken Paxton” sign she held while waiting to meet Talarico were the opening two words.

“It’s a declaration that it’s about us,” she explained. “We are the ones, all of us, what we can definitely do together. And he inspires us to act. He doesn’t just talk — he believes.”

Campaign officials reported that Talarico collected $600,000 in small online contributions within two hours of Paxton’s Republican runoff victory Tuesday, marking the most profitable two-hour period for his campaign since announcing his candidacy in September 2025.

Among the initial speakers at the gathering was Democratic state representative Ann Johnson, who jointly led Paxton’s impeachment proceedings with a Republican colleague.

Talarico stressed that the corruption-related impeachment was initiated by the Republican-controlled Texas legislature, Paxton’s own political party. Following his rally, he explained his focus on Paxton’s history because “he has escaped accountability for years.”

Paxton’s campaign did not respond immediately to requests for comment. However, after Talarico concluded his remarks, Paxton shared a link to his campaign donation website on social platform X with a personal criticism of his rival: “James Talarico and his big vegan allies have raised a fortune trying to stop the America First agenda. I need your help!” he posted.

This mirrored Paxton’s statement following his Tuesday runoff win, and Talarico had prepared a comeback for his Houston supporters: “I’ve been eating barbecue since before Ken Paxton’s first indictment,” he responded.

The dietary criticism represents Paxton’s effort to identify perceived vulnerabilities in Talarico’s campaign for potential exploitation. Using tactics similar to Trump, Paxton has also been experimenting with derogatory nicknames for his challenger.

These included “TalaFreako,” which Talarico converted into a campaign advantage Wednesday evening. He informed supporters they could visit his campaign website to purchase T-shirts featuring the new moniker.

During a CBS News interview before Wednesday’s rally, Talarico addressed questions about his views on gender, clarifying that he believes “God cannot be defined by human categories” and acknowledged “two sexes, men and women.”

“I also know there’s a very small percentage of people who have these chromosomal abnormalities, and I believe that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect,” he stated.

California’s governor put his signature on new legislation Wednesday designed to prevent federal interference in state elections, expressing concerns that President Donald Trump’s administration might attempt to disrupt this year’s midterm contests.

The new statute, which became effective right away and comes just days ahead of next Tuesday’s primary election, bars anyone — federal agents included — from gaining access to voter databases or election systems without obtaining a court order first. The measure also limits law enforcement from interfering with election personnel, except during public safety emergencies.

While Trump administration representatives have stated they don’t intend to deploy immigration agents to voting sites nationwide — a worry expressed by multiple Democratic secretaries of state this year — the governor cautioned that “we have to be prepared for everything” since “there’s no rules anymore with the Trump administration.”

California’s closely monitored gubernatorial primary is already seeing voter participation, with numerous Democratic candidates and two competitive Republicans competing for only two positions on the November general election ballot. The state’s open primary format allows just the top two vote recipients to move forward, without regard to party membership.

The governor, who is term-limited and cannot run again, described the election legislation as addressing “legitimate anxiety” regarding Trump’s methods, especially in states led by Democrats, where the president has sent federal agents despite local officials’ opposition. The Democratic leader cautioned against underestimating someone who “doesn’t believe in free and fair elections.”

“I expect the worst with Trump because he’s done the worst,” he stated during a press briefing.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson responded to The Associated Press Wednesday evening that Trump remains dedicated to ensuring Americans maintain complete confidence in election administration.

“Instead of levying false attacks at the President, Newscum should look in the mirror,” she commented in a statement, referencing Trump’s disparaging term for the governor.

During a Vanity Fair interview last year, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles dismissed suggestions that Trump would use military forces to suppress voting, calling such claims “categorically false.”

The California statute also criminalizes knowingly removing completed ballots from election officials’ control.

Earlier this year, Trump’s FBI confiscated 2020 general election ballots from Georgia’s largest county, which leans heavily Democratic and has been central to the president’s unfounded allegations that fraud caused his electoral loss. The FBI and Justice Department have also requested records from past elections in the biggest counties in Arizona and Michigan.

Trump sparked nationwide redistricting activity before the midterms by encouraging Republicans in Texas and other states to redraw their U.S. House districts to help the party maintain control of the narrowly divided chamber. Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Tennessee have also approved new maps that may favor Republicans, with Louisiana potentially following suit.

Republicans currently believe they could pick up as many as 14 seats through redistricting in November, while Democrats estimate they could gain six in California and Utah.

Federal prosecutors have opened a criminal investigation into writer E. Jean Carroll, who previously brought successful civil lawsuits against U.S. President Donald Trump, according to a source with knowledge of the matter.

The investigation centers on potential perjury charges related to Carroll’s testimony in connection with two civil cases she won against Trump – one involving her claims that he sexually abused her at a New York department store and another concerning defamation in 2019, the source told reporters Wednesday while requesting anonymity due to the ongoing nature of the investigation.

CNN was first to report this development.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago is leading the investigation, though the initiation of such a probe does not guarantee that charges will ultimately be filed against Carroll.

Neither the department nor Carroll’s attorney Robbie Kaplan provided immediate responses to requests for comment.

Trump’s Justice Department has initiated numerous investigations targeting the president’s critics since last year, with some resulting in criminal charges.

According to the source, prosecutors are focusing on a 2022 deposition in which the former Elle magazine columnist stated she had not received external funding for her legal case. Her legal team subsequently disclosed that Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn, had covered portions of her attorney fees.

In May 2023, a jury determined that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll and defamed her through false statements, though they did not find him guilty of rape. A separate jury in January 2024 concluded he had defamed her and ordered him to pay $83.3 million in damages.

Trump has maintained his innocence regarding all allegations and continues to pursue legal challenges related to Carroll’s cases.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has moved swiftly to implement Trump’s directives since replacing his predecessor Pam Bondi, has recused himself from this department investigation due to his previous role as one of Trump’s personal lawyers handling the Carroll appeals, the source noted.

Federal prosecutors in Miami have been instructed by the Trump administration to halt criminal investigations targeting Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez, who has long been monitored by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, according to current and former law enforcement officials. The directive signals improving diplomatic relations between Washington and the oil-rich South American nation.

Whether prosecutors had connected Rodríguez to criminal activity or were preparing charges remains unknown. A Justice Department representative stated via email that “there was never an investigation into her to shut down.”

However, DEA documents acquired by The Associated Press this year reveal that Rodríguez has repeatedly appeared in federal law enforcement reports since at least 2018, despite never facing criminal charges in the United States unlike other high-ranking Venezuelan officials.

The order to halt scrutiny of Rodríguez aimed to prevent interference with the administration’s efforts to bring stability to Venezuela following the arrest of her predecessor, Nicolás Maduro, among other considerations, according to an official. Whether the White House participated in this decision remains uncertain, as they directed inquiries to the Justice Department.

“Everybody has been told to stand down,” stated one former official.

The former officials, who received briefings on this development, along with the current official, all spoke to The Associated Press under anonymity because they lacked authorization to discuss internal matters publicly.

Rodríguez, a U.S. attorney representing her, and the Venezuelan Communications Ministry did not respond to comment requests.

Eliminating the possibility of charges, even temporarily, reduces pressure on Rodríguez while the Trump administration attempts to collaborate with the acting leader to stabilize Venezuela after Maduro’s removal and welcome U.S. investment to the country.

President Donald Trump called Rodríguez a “terrific person” shortly after the U.S. military transported Maduro and his wife to New York to face federal drug charges. Both have entered not guilty pleas.

Recently, the U.S. has removed sanctions against Rodríguez and acknowledged her as Venezuela’s singular head of state, enabling her to restore connections with western financial institutions and collaborate more freely with U.S. investors interested in accessing the world’s largest oil reserves. As relations between both governments have strengthened, some point to the Venezuelan approach — marked by oil embargoes, leadership indictments, and military intervention threats — as a blueprint for promoting internal regime change while the U.S. pressures other long-standing adversaries in Iran and Cuba.

Rodríguez and her brother, Jorge Rodríguez, who leads the National Assembly, faced U.S. sanctions during Trump’s first presidency for their involvement in weakening Venezuelan democracy and solidifying Maduro’s authoritarian control.

Rodríguez “is doing a great job,” Trump posted on social media in early March. “The Oil is beginning to flow, and the professionalism and dedication between both Countries is a very nice thing to see!”

In recent months, Rodríguez has organized events with numerous American oil executives, some participating in prominent delegations headed by U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum.

Absent from all the mutual praise is any discussion of elections, despite Rodríguez exceeding a 90-day deadline last month established by Venezuela’s high court to temporarily occupy Maduro’s role.

“I don’t know,” she answered in English when a visiting U.S. journalist earlier this month called out a question about her timeline for conducting elections. “Some time.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the leading Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has requested the administration justify its favorable approach toward Rodríguez, describing her as a “central figure in Nicolás Maduro’s repressive regime.”

“Sanctions have been lifted on Ms. Rodríguez without any indication that she has taken concrete and meaningful actions to restore democratic order,” Sheehan, alongside Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, stated in a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent last week.

Rick de la Torre, a former CIA chief of station in Caracas, explained that the decision to protect Rodríguez aligns with the Trump administration’s foreign policy objectives in Venezuela.

“She’s a lifelong Marxist and was a senior leader of one of the world’s most corrupt regimes but the U.S. is providing her with breathing space and carrots to lay the foundation for democracy and U.S. investment,” said de la Torre, the CEO of Tower Strategy, which advises companies on Venezuela.

“There’s a shelf life to her utility, however. At some point she will face justice,” he added.

The DEA had compiled an extensive intelligence file on Rodríguez from at least 2018, receiving accusations against her ranging from drug trafficking to gold smuggling, the AP reported earlier this year. One confidential informant told DEA in early 2021 that Rodríguez was using hotels in the Caribbean resort of Isla Margarita “as a front to launder money,” the records show.

Her name has appeared in nearly a dozen DEA investigations — several of which continued as recently as this year — involving field offices from Paraguay and Ecuador to Phoenix and New York. She had also been connected to Maduro’s alleged financial operative, Alex Saab, whom U.S. authorities first detained in 2020 on money-laundering charges, the records show.

Rodríguez expelled Saab this month during a cleanup of insider businessmen accused of enriching themselves through corrupt arrangements with Maduro.

Which Miami investigations mentioned Rodríguez’s name remains unclear. Two former officials said Rodríguez has also been discussed in meetings with investigators in Tampa assigned last year by former Attorney General Pam Bondi to examine financial crimes in Venezuela.

At that time, Rodríguez served as Maduro’s vice president. Justice Department policy requires the attorney general to personally authorize charging any foreign head of state, who typically enjoy immunity from prosecution under international and U.S. law.

The suspension of investigations into Rodríguez occurs as the Trump administration has similarly slowed ongoing federal investigations into another prominent Latin American leftist, Colombian President Gustavo Petro.

The DEA had also labeled Petro a “priority target” due to alleged connections to drug traffickers that federal prosecutors had investigated for months. The New York Times reported in March that U.S. officials recently assured the Colombian government Petro does not face charges in those cases.

Duncan Levin, a former prosecutor who worked for the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn, said it would be “deeply troubling” for law enforcement to be “told to stand down from a legitimate investigation for political or transactional reasons.”

“The White House cannot use criminal enforcement as a diplomatic light switch,” Levin told AP. “DOJ decisions are supposed to be based on law, evidence, policy and public safety — not on whether a foreign official is useful to the administration at a given moment.”

A federal agency responsible for protecting consumers in financial matters announced Wednesday it will bring nearly all of its field staff back to Washington, D.C., in what appears to be another effort to reduce the organization’s scope.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau plans to move approximately 450 workers from locations near its previous regional centers in San Francisco, Atlanta, Chicago and New York to its Washington headquarters. The agency will also eliminate remote work options, according to an internal email.

This consolidation is expected to prompt more employees to leave the agency, adding to a trend of departures that has already reduced staffing significantly.

For over a year, the current administration has been fighting in federal courts to gain approval for plans to cut the majority of the agency’s employees, though legal challenges have prevented this so far.

Agency representatives did not provide immediate responses to requests for comment made after regular business hours Wednesday.

High-ranking administration officials, including the president, have characterized the CFPB, which Congress established in 2010, as a politically motivated obstacle to business freedom. Meanwhile, opposition party members and supporters of the agency view elimination efforts as favoring corporations over consumer interests.

Workers currently based at the agency’s headquarters near the White House must return to in-person work five days per week starting in July, the internal communication stated.

Starting August 31, the email specified that “staff whose duty stations are greater than 50 miles from headquarters, staff associated with former regional offices” and all field workers will need to report to the new headquarters location.

The agency will provide relocation expenses for “eligible” employees following existing guidelines, according to a separate memo.

In February, the administration terminated the lease on the CFPB’s well-positioned Washington headquarters near the White House. The building now partially serves as workspace for Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, who also serves as acting director of the consumer protection agency.

The replacement office is located in a different area of the capital with less convenient public transit access, the email indicated.

Since the administration announced plans to eliminate the agency last year and suspended most of its operations, the CFPB has lost roughly one-third of its approximately 1,700 employees, court documents show.

Officials are currently seeking judicial approval to terminate about half of the workers who remain.

WASHINGTON — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s commanding victory over longtime Senator John Cornyn in Tuesday’s Republican Senate runoff delivered President Donald Trump a significant political triumph, but it may have also handed Democrats exactly the matchup they were hoping for in the Lone Star State.

Though Trump’s last-minute endorsement of Paxton proved successful, political analysts warn the outcome could jeopardize the GOP’s slim Senate majority.

Here are five key implications from the race:

CORNYN BECOMES AN UNPREDICTABLE FORCE

Trump’s backing of Paxton created friction with Senate Republican Leader John Thune and Senator Tim Scott, who leads the GOP’s Senate campaign efforts.

With no future election campaigns to consider, Cornyn could now operate as an independent voice during his remaining time in office, similar to retiring Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who successfully opposed Kevin Warsh’s Federal Reserve chair nomination, or Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who lost his state’s primary runoff and recently joined Democrats in supporting an Iran war powers resolution.

Cornyn now finds himself in that same category of senators, though whether the former GOP leadership member will challenge Trump during his final months remains uncertain, especially after running a campaign closely aligned with the president.

FINANCIAL CHALLENGES LOOM FOR PAXTON

During his victory remarks Tuesday evening, Paxton urged supporters to contribute through his campaign website, cautioning that his Democratic opponent, state Representative James Talarico, will “raise more money than any Democrat in America.”

Recent financial disclosures revealed Paxton held $2.3 million in campaign funds as of early May, while Talarico possessed $9.9 million in early April.

A confidential memo from last year by the Senate Republicans’ campaign organization cautioned that a Paxton candidacy could “cause Republicans to divert hundreds of millions that would otherwise be spent winning key battlegrounds.”

With Paxton now the nominee, the source of that funding remains uncertain. The Senate Leadership Fund, the GOP’s main super PAC, declined to comment, as did MAGA Inc, Trump’s $356 million super PAC.

“This is the wrong election to have someone who’s as weak of a nominee as Paxton up against someone who’s as strong a fundraiser as Talarico,” observed one Texas political consultant, predicting that “MAGA Inc. will have to step in.”

TEXAS BECOMES MORE COMPETITIVE

Both Cook Political Report and Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics moved their Texas Senate race ratings from “likely Republican” to “lean Republican,” confirming concerns that Paxton represents a more vulnerable candidate than Cornyn.

Despite Trump carrying Texas by nearly 14 points in 2024, Republicans must now invest millions in what’s expected to be a contentious battle to protect what was previously a secure seat.

A Wednesday campaign memo from Talarico’s team positioned him as “the best positioned candidate in a generation to win Texas.” He characterized Paxton as “the most corrupt and damaged nominee in the modern Texas GOP,” referencing his felony charges, Texas House impeachment proceedings, corruption allegations, and reports of extramarital relationships.

Paxton and his supporters plan to target Talarico on cultural issues, including his support for transgender youth, describing God as nonbinary, his previous “non-meat campaign” purchasing only vegan products, and statements suggesting more than two biological sexes exist.

A Wednesday advertisement also highlighted Talarico’s comparison of the border to a “front porch” with “a giant welcome mat.”

OTHER COMPETITIVE RACES AT STAKE

Republicans currently maintain a 53-47 Senate advantage, meaning Democrats need to gain four seats for control.

Democrats must defend two states Trump carried in 2024 — Georgia and Michigan — while pursuing Republican-held territories including North Carolina, Maine, Ohio, and Alaska.

Lauren French, a spokesperson for the Democratic group Senate Majority PAC, suggested Republicans face a “tough conversation” about reallocating resources from other competitive states.

In North Carolina, former Governor Roy Cooper faces former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley to replace the retiring Tillis. Ohio features former Senator Sherrod Brown challenging incumbent Republican Senator Jon Husted. Both contests are rated as toss-ups and will be crucial for determining Senate control in November.

“Will it be less in North Carolina, where their candidate is already down?” French questioned. “Less in Ohio, where they put an astronomical amount of money signaling their concern over Husted?”

LOW TURNOUT AIDED PAXTON’S SUCCESS

While Trump may view Paxton’s win as proof of his endorsement power, the general election will feature a vastly different voter pool than the limited Republican runoff participants.

Paxton benefited from minimal runoff turnout, securing fewer than 900,000 votes — significantly below the March primary participation levels. Over 2 million Democrats voted in their primary, with more than a million supporting Talarico.

Without Trump appearing on the ballot, some voters may skip the election or leave the Senate race blank while Talarico appeals to independent and moderate Republican voters.

California’s governor has declared his state will fully tax any money distributed to residents from the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion compensation fund targeting alleged victims of political persecution, according to an announcement made Wednesday.

Governor Gavin Newsom stated his intention during public remarks, saying “One thing I think we’re going to try to do … is tax 100%. Anyone from California who receives any of those funds, we want to tax 100% of those proceeds and that’s an action the state of California can take. It’s an action we look forward to taking.”

The governor’s office took to social media to label the $1.776 billion compensation program as a “slush fund.”

Newsom provided no timeline for when California would begin implementing this taxation policy.

Neither the White House nor the Justice Department offered immediate responses when asked for comment.

The compensation program emerged from a legal settlement between U.S. President Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service, following Trump’s lawsuit against the agency for releasing his tax information to news outlets.

More than 1,500 individuals connected to January 6 received presidential pardons from Trump last year. Many of these defendants are now tallying expenses from their legal proceedings, incarceration periods, and lost businesses while seeking reimbursement for what they consider misconduct by the Justice Department during former President Joe Biden’s tenure.

This unprecedented compensation effort already faces court challenges from two law enforcement officers who protected the U.S. Capitol during the January 6, 2021 riots.

Both Democratic and some Republican lawmakers have raised concerns about the fund’s legal foundation, particularly questioning a settlement provision that permanently prevents the IRS from conducting future audits of Trump, his family members, and his business enterprises.

Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina criticized the program, stating “(The fund) could potentially compensate someone who assaulted a police officer, admitted their guilt, got convicted, got pardoned and now we’re going to pay them for that? That’s absurd.”

Civil rights organizations filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday challenging new regulations from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that advocates claim will weaken decades-old protections against lending discrimination targeting Black, Latino and other minority communities.

The legal challenge, submitted in Washington, D.C., targets modifications made this year to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which prohibits lenders from discriminating against loan applicants. One key change being contested eliminates the requirement for lenders to evaluate “disparate impact” — seemingly neutral policies that disproportionately harm specific demographic groups.

The organizations contend the regulatory changes would allow lenders to focus their marketing efforts on predominantly white communities, pushing minority borrowers toward dangerous, high-cost lenders offering predatory loans with excessive interest rates.

“This is the deliberate dismantling of 50 years of legal jurisprudence, regulatory guidance, and bipartisan consensus that lending discrimination has no place in America,” Lisa Rice, the CEO and president of the National Fair Housing Alliance, one of the plaintiffs that filed the lawsuit, said in a statement.

“This reversal by the CFPB is a continuation of this Administration’s efforts to gut fair housing and lending protections,” she said. “Eviscerating these guardrails will ultimately result in less credit access for many people, make our markets less sound, and cause our economy to be less productive.”

Paulina Gonzalez-Brito, the CEO of another plaintiff, Rise Economy, a California nonprofit that advocates for economic justice, accused the CFPB of ignoring “public comments, common sense, and decades of precedent in its misguided attempt to turn anti-discrimination law on its head.”

“The CFPB was created to protect consumers and small businesses from financial abuse and discrimination, and this final Reg B rule would do real harm, setting us back in our collective efforts to ensure that all families and small businesses have a fair chance to achieve the American Dream,” Gonzalez-Brito said.

The CFPB did not respond to a request for comment.

Plaintiffs argue that the rule change is part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration to dismantle regulations related to fair housing and lending protections.

The administration, the National Fair Housing Alliance said, has proposed eliminating the budget for the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, which funds nonprofits to ensure access to housing for seniors, disabled veterans, families with children and other groups. It also has cut staffing in half at the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

Several high-profile settlements in recent years indicate housing discrimination remains a significant problem.

In 2023, the Justice Department accused Los Angeles-based City National Bank of discrimination by refusing to underwrite mortgages in predominately Black and Latino communities, requiring the bank to pay more than $31 million in the largest redlining settlement in department history. In 2016. the Justice Department and the CFPB fined Mississippi-based BancorpSouth $10.6 million, alleging the bank deliberately discriminated against minorities in its lending practices.

Plaintiffs are asking court to vacate the rule, which they contend is arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, and issued outside the procedures required by Congress.

“The Final Rule does not reflect reasoned decision-making or an expert, good-faith effort to implement our nation’s foundational credit antidiscrimination statute,” plaintiffs wrote. “Quite the opposite: The Final Rule is a drastic turn, without justification, from the CFPB’s (and its Federal Reserve Board predecessor’s) longstanding interpretation and enforcement of key ECOA provisions.”

The former first lady has revealed she was terrified during her husband’s catastrophic debate appearance in June 2024, believing the former president might be experiencing a medical emergency during the performance that ultimately ended his reelection bid.

“I was frightened, because I had never ever seen Joe like that before or since. Never,” the former first lady shared during a television interview with CBS News set to broadcast Sunday.

The former president’s unsteady, unclear, and at times bewildered presentation against Donald Trump during the June 2024 face-off reinforced existing concerns among voters regarding his capability to serve another four-year term. His subsequent efforts to dismiss the poor showing and provide confidence about his readiness for the presidency failed to calm voter anxieties. Facing increasing demands from fellow party members, he withdrew from the race, leading Democrats to select Vice President Kamala Harris as their nominee.

“I don’t know what happened,” the former first lady explained during the interview. “As I watched it, I thought, ‘Oh, my God, he’s having a stroke.’ And it scared me to death.”

The former first lady is currently publicizing her upcoming book titled “View from the East Wing: A Memoir,” which will be released next week.

The United States has reinstated Francesca Albanese, a United Nations expert on Palestinian territories, to its sanctions list, as shown on the Treasury Department’s website Wednesday.

Key developments in the case:

• The sanctions were originally imposed in July 2025 because of what the U.S. described as Albanese’s attempts to encourage the International Criminal Court to pursue action against American and Israeli officials, businesses and executives.

• Earlier in May, Albanese was taken off the sanctions list when a federal judge approved an injunction requested by her husband and daughter that temporarily suspended the sanctions.

• U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington determined the Trump administration likely infringed on her free-speech rights by implementing the sanctions following her criticism of Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

• Last Friday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted an administrative stay of Leon’s decision, permitting the government to reinstate Albanese’s status as a sanctioned foreign national.

• The appeals court emphasized that the administrative stay was procedural in nature and “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits” of the government’s larger appeal to suspend the lower court’s injunction while the case proceeds.

Legal representatives for Don Lemon, the former CNN anchor now working as an independent journalist, filed court documents Wednesday requesting access to grand jury transcripts from his federal civil rights case, pointing to a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct nationwide as justification for the unusual request.

The former television host entered a not guilty plea in February to federal civil rights charges connected to a demonstration at a Minnesota church in January, where an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official serves as pastor. Lemon is among 39 individuals facing charges related to the January incident.

Lemon maintains his presence at Cities Church in St. Paul on Jan. 18 was strictly professional, stating he was there to document the protest as a journalist rather than participate in it.

Working alongside fellow independent journalist Georgia Fort, Lemon submitted a motion in February requesting access to grand jury transcripts that led to indictments against them and seven other individuals.

In their most recent submission to U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, Lemon’s legal team contends that “the past 15 months have seen an unprecedented and growing distrust in the Justice Department’s use of the grand jury process,” making the release of his grand jury transcripts necessary.

“In the past two weeks alone, several courts have chastised Justice Department prosecutors for irregularities in the grand jury process and gone so far as to dismiss indictments for grand jury misconduct,” Lemon’s attorneys stated in Wednesday’s filing.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Lemon references the May 21 dismissal of all pending charges against four remaining activists who protested outside a federal building during last year’s immigration crackdown in Chicago. The dismissal came after a judge scrutinized allegations of grand jury misconduct by the prosecutor’s office.

Lemon also references the May 15 dismissal of nine felony grand jury indictments by three federal judges in Wyoming. The judges cited misconduct by the interim U.S. attorney that could have prejudiced the jurors, including comments he made to the grand jurors.

Lemon cites a third case out of Rhode Island where a federal judge on May 13 blocked the Trump administration’s sweeping demands for confidential transgender patient information from the state’s largest hospital that provides gender-affirming care to minors.

In that case, the judge rebuked actions by prosecutors, saying the Justice Department can no longer be trusted to enforce its power fairly and honestly.

Additionally, Lemon’s legal team highlighted the rejection of search warrants requested by the Justice Department for Lemon’s YouTube channel and account, as well as cellphone data for four other defendants. The magistrate judge determined the government failed to demonstrate probable cause that evidence of criminal activity would be discovered through the requested searches.

The search warrants were rejected in February, but the court record was unsealed on Tuesday.

Multiple judges — including Minnesota’s chief federal judge — determined there was insufficient probable cause to support the initial complaints prosecutors attempted to file against the two journalists, leading them to decline signing arrest warrants for Lemon or Fort before the government pursued grand jury proceedings.

Lemon’s legal representatives contend they deserve access to grand jury records due to the “checkered history of this case” and “numerous examples of grand jury misconduct by DOJ around the country.”

Lemon is “entitled to see whether the government allowed the grand jury to serve its role or whether, as elsewhere, the government interfered with the proper function of the grand jury,” his attorneys argued.

WASHINGTON — During what started as a routine Cabinet meeting, the president transformed into a construction foreman Wednesday, enthusiastically describing municipal improvement projects throughout the nation’s capital to his assembled officials and a national television audience.

The commander-in-chief spent considerable time detailing fountain repairs and pool cleaning operations, carefully explaining the differences between various blasting techniques and describing efforts to fix damaged walkways in a public park.

While the scene might have resembled a local municipal leader updating residents at a community meeting, this was the president drawing on his background in real estate development to showcase Washington renovation efforts.

“I love construction. It’s very exciting,” the president declared, asserting that the improvements he’s overseen mean “D.C. is looking beautiful.”

His construction commentary stretched for 10 minutes and provided more detail than discussions of other significant topics covered during the session, including military action in Iran. The meeting also touched briefly on rising fuel costs across the country and economic concerns that could impact his party’s efforts to maintain congressional control following November’s midterm elections.

The president revealed new aspects of his construction agenda, mentioning for the first time that improvements would reach the fountain at the World War II Memorial.

He reported that crews were enhancing 28 fountains under his supervision, then highlighted efforts to restore what he called the “reflecting lake” or “reflecting pond” — referring to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool — which he said had undergone steam-cleaning, fumigation and coating with “American flag blue” paint.

“Over the years, I built hundreds of pools,” the president recalled, referencing his construction career in 1970s and 1980s New York. “I always like to build Olympic-sized swimming pools.”

The renovation work included removing “more than 10 dumpsters of garbage,” according to the president.

“Every corner had massive amounts,” he explained, adding, “I guess that’s the way the tide goes” — despite the fact that no tide reaches the pool.

The president indicated the goal was finishing the work by Independence Day and progress was largely on schedule, though recent rainfall in Washington had caused some setbacks.

The most extensive details emerged when discussion turned to power-washing procedures.

Crews “sandblasted it, and then we pebble-blasted,” the president explained, describing it as “a bigger version of sand.”

To prevent leaks, he said workers were applying “a very sophisticated form of rubber.”

The president also claimed credit for rebuilding the park situated across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.

“I made a contribution to redoing Lafayette Park. That’s the entrance to the White House. And it was an embarrassment that floors were broken,” the president said, referring to the park’s brick walkways.

Throughout the presentation, most Cabinet officials listened attentively with minimal reaction, except Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick — already recognized for conspicuous laughter at such gatherings — who nodded frequently and enthusiastically. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum also provided comments about some renovation projects when asked.

Before shifting to city improvements, the president began the meeting by announcing that only selected Cabinet members would be permitted to speak to expedite proceedings.

“Everybody around here has got a lot to say. But we did that once, and it lasted for like four or five hours. It was a little much,” the president said.

While that was an overstatement, previous Cabinet meetings have featured extended remarks — often highly complimentary of the president — from senior officials. One such gathering last summer extended the public portion beyond three hours.

Ultimately, the president’s construction briefing consumed roughly one-eighth of the 80-minute session. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attempted to redirect the discussion toward Iran. “I think, actually, your efforts on the reflecting pool are actually a great segue,” Hegseth suggested.

“If you look at Washington and Lincoln, these are two men that faced monumental tasks and stood up in historic fashion and delivered for the American people,” the defense secretary continued. “And, when you step back and look at 47 years of what Iran waged — war against us and our people — there’s only one man, over the course of both presidencies, who has stood up and said they will never get a nuclear weapon.”

NEWARK, N.J. — Several Democratic congressional representatives toured a federal immigration detention facility in New Jersey on Wednesday, amid ongoing protests and claims that detainees are refusing to eat in protest of facility conditions.

Following his tour of Delaney Hall in Newark, U.S. Rep. Adriano Espaillat, a Manhattan Democrat, stated that detainees were declining meals due to what he characterized as “inhumane” conditions.

“We will shut this center down. We will shut it down,” Espaillat declared following the approximately one-hour inspection.

Manhattan Democrats U.S. Reps. Jerry Nadler and Dan Goldman subsequently addressed protesters and relatives of detainees who were demonstrating beyond the facility’s security entrance.

“We want to make sure the conditions here are going to be dealt with,” Goldman stated just before both legislators entered the complex.

Over 50 demonstrators carried placards reading “Stop Family Separation” while chanting “Free Them All” along with other rallying cries.

Several protesters directed comments at the armed, helmet-clad Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers positioned outside, shouting “cowards” and “idiots.”

The demonstrations started Friday and have experienced periods of heightened tension.

On Monday, U.S. Sen. Andy Kim, a New Jersey Democrat, reported being pepper-sprayed when he and New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill attempted to lead a group of Democratic officials to visit detainees but were refused access.

“Instead of engaging with me and others about the poor conditions, ICE sent in an armored vehicle and a line of armed agents that only poured gasoline on the fire,” Kim wrote on social media following Monday’s confrontations. “Civilians were tackled and restrained, and agents fired pepper balls and spray into the crowd.”

Gabriela Soto stated Wednesday that her spouse was among those detainees who joined the food refusal before being moved to a different location.

“At first it was just 300. Then it became a little bit more. Now, every single detainee inside there is participating. Every single one,” she explained, dressed in a black shirt reading “Abolish ICE.”

Amol Sinha, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, indicated his group has received “horror stories” about detainees, including expectant mothers, not receiving adequate medical care for their health issues.

“Cruelty is the point,” he stated.

ICE officials have not replied to email requests for comment Wednesday, though the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which supervises the agency, has rejected claims of any hunger strike, mistreatment or substandard conditions within the center and characterized the complaints as political theater.

“The fact is, we’re giving them the calories they want,” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said Wednesday regarding detainees at Delaney Hall. “This isn’t Holiday Inn.”

President Donald Trump also supported the detention facility.

“We run the finest facilities anywhere in the world — of their type — but we have some horrible killers,” he said Wednesday.

Situated along an industrial section of Newark Bay and operated by a private prison company, Delaney Hall has repeatedly become a center of demonstrations and confrontations between immigrant advocacy groups and immigration enforcement personnel.

Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver, a New Jersey Democrat, were among individuals detained during protests when the 1,000-bed complex opened last May.

Federal immigration authorities announced Wednesday that roughly 11,000 Lebanese nationals currently residing in the United States will receive extended deportation protections and work authorization through November 27.

The six-month extension was published in the Federal Register and applies to individuals covered under the Temporary Protected Status program, according to a 2024 government estimate.

According to the Department of Homeland Security notice, Secretary Markwayne Mullin has not completed his evaluation of Lebanon’s TPS designation and the protection was automatically renewed as a result.

The federal TPS program, established by Congress in 1990, offers deportation relief and employment authorization to individuals already present in the United States whose home nations face natural disasters, armed conflicts, or other exceptional circumstances. The homeland security secretary designates eligible countries for periods ranging from six to 18 months.

Current regional instability tied to the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran and ongoing cross-border violence were referenced in Wednesday’s announcement. Israeli forces conducted extensive airstrikes against Lebanon on Tuesday in what marked one of the most intense bombing campaigns in recent weeks.

Mullin, who previously served as a U.S. senator from Oklahoma, received confirmation as secretary in March following the dismissal of Kristi Noem by the administration.

During her tenure as secretary, Noem had ended TPS designations for various countries during their renewal periods, leading to legal challenges alleging inadequate review processes and discriminatory motivations.

The Supreme Court conducted oral arguments in April regarding the termination of TPS protections for Haitian and Syrian nationals, with a decision anticipated before the court’s term concludes in late June or early July.

The current administration has sought to eliminate most TPS program enrollment, arguing that permitting these immigrants to stay conflicts with national interests.