Category: Politics

A battle between congressional generations ended with newcomer Rep. Christian Menefee unseating longtime Rep. Al Green in a Democratic primary runoff for a Houston-area congressional seat that was newly formed through last year’s Republican-controlled redistricting process.

Green, who has held office since 2005 and gained recognition for his demonstrations during President Donald Trump’s addresses, established himself as a champion of progressive racial justice measures that frequently angered Republican colleagues.

“I am so honored to have served for these many years, more than twenty. And I’m honored to have done some things that I’m very proud of,” Green told his supporters during an election night event.

“You probably see me smiling and it’s because it’s because this is not the end,” he added as the audience cheered. “This is the beginning of a new chapter.”

During the campaign, the 78-year-old Green faced attacks from cryptocurrency advocates due to his resistance to digital currency technology.

“Rep. Green’s defeat proves that anti-crypto hostility carries real electoral consequences, making him the first Democratic incumbent this cycle to lose his seat,” said Geoff Vetter, a spokesperson for Fairshake, a pro-cryptocurrency super PAC that spent millions in the runoff to unseat Green. “Fairshake was the difference-maker in this race, and we will continue to aggressively back leaders like Rep. Menefee across the country.”

Menefee, 38, previously served as the chief legal officer for Texas’ most populous county before taking his congressional oath in February following his victory in a January special election to replace the deceased Rep. Sylvester Turner. Turner passed away in February of the previous year, but Texas Gov. Greg Abbott delayed scheduling the special election for several months. Democratic leaders criticized this postponement as a strategy to preserve Republicans’ narrow House majority.

In a statement after his victory, Menefee praised Green’s service record, describing him as an “icon” and promising to continue his legislative efforts.

“For decades, Congressman Green has done what so few in public life are willing to do: he has spoken truth to power, directly to their faces, without flinching,” said Menefee. “He protested with his body, his voice, and his career on the line. He stood in the well of the United States House of Representatives and called President Trump out to his face, even when he stood alone. That is a legacy that will outlast any election.”

Menefee also criticized the state’s voting procedures.

Before Republican state legislators redrafted the congressional boundaries to favor more GOP-leaning districts, Green and Menefee had represented adjacent constituencies under the previous district lines.

“Republicans have made this hard on purpose,” Menefee told his supporters. “They delayed this election. They drew maps designed to dilute our power. They made you come back to the polls over and over again because they were hoping you would get tired and give up. You didn’t. Now it’s time to finish the job.”

Green made history in 2017 as the second Democratic lawmaker to introduce impeachment proceedings against Trump during his initial presidency and maintained his calls for the president’s ouster. In the past year, Green submitted three distinct impeachment articles targeting Trump, citing power abuse and allegedly encouraging threats against government officials and judicial officers.

After Tuesday’s runoff results, Trump described Green as “one of the most mentally deficient Congressmen in the history of our Country” in a social media message celebrating the outcome.

“But I will miss that lunatic not screaming and violently waving his cane at me during my next State of the Union Speech,” Trump wrote.

WASHINGTON — Alabama’s Republican leadership petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to permit the state to implement a congressional district map that benefits the GOP for upcoming elections, even though a federal court determined the redistricting plan deliberately targets Black voters with discrimination.

State officials submitted an emergency petition to the high court one day after a panel of three judges declined to approve a map the state created three years earlier, which contains only one district with a Black majority among Alabama’s seven congressional seats.

Instead, the judicial panel mandated that Alabama must continue utilizing a court-imposed map that was implemented for the 2024 elections, featuring two districts where Black voters represent a majority or near-majority of the population.

Attorney General Steve Marshall argued before the court that the state did not deliberately target Black residents with discriminatory practices and should be permitted to conduct this year’s elections using a map selected by state legislators rather than federal judges.

This petition represents the most recent chapter in the aftermath of last month’s Supreme Court decision that eliminated a Black-majority district in Louisiana and diminished the strength of the federal Voting Rights Act. Following that decision, Republican officials across multiple Southern states, including Alabama, have initiated efforts to redraw voting districts containing substantial minority populations that have historically supported Democratic candidates.

This redistricting activity forms part of a wider effort by President Donald Trump to maintain Republicans’ narrow House majority heading into November’s elections.

Alabama’s redistricting battle has been ongoing for several years. In 2023, the three-judge panel determined that a map created by Republican state legislators deliberately weakened the electoral influence of Black citizens. The court noted that Alabama, with approximately 27% Black population, should contain two districts where Black voters hold majority or near-majority status. The court-selected map was implemented in 2024.

Following the Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision, Alabama officials attempted to put their 2023 state-drawn map into effect. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority agreed to remove the injunction blocking the map’s implementation and returned the case to the three-judge panel for fresh consideration based on the Louisiana decision.

During this period, Alabama voters participated in May 11 primaries, and Republican Gov. Kay Ivey scheduled new special primaries for Aug. 11 in four congressional districts impacted by the map change.

After additional review, the judicial panel maintained its original determination that there was “undisputed evidence” of deliberate racial discrimination, a conclusion that remained separate from and uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act ruling.

The panel stated that the special congressional primaries should move forward using the previously court-approved districts.

Implementation of the court-mandated map resulted in the 2024 election victory of U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures, a Black Democrat. State Republicans are pushing to implement a map that would provide the GOP with a chance to regain the south Alabama congressional seat.

Alabama state officials have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to permit the use of a congressional district map that would eliminate one of two districts where Black voters hold a majority or near-majority, as Republicans work to maintain congressional control heading into November’s midterm elections.

The appeal comes after a federal court on Tuesday prohibited the state’s most recent attempt to implement a redrawn map designed to convert a U.S. House seat currently occupied by a Black Democratic representative into a Republican-held district.

Democratic candidates typically receive strong support from Black voters, while Republicans are working to protect slim majorities in both chambers of Congress during the upcoming midterm elections.

State Republicans are requesting that the Supreme Court overturn Tuesday’s judicial prohibition issued by a three-judge federal panel, which determined that the Republican-supported map deliberately discriminated against Black voters and cannot be implemented for the 2026 elections.

This decision represents the most recent chapter in an intense wave of congressional redistricting occurring throughout the South, as Republican-controlled states rush to capitalize on an April Supreme Court ruling that significantly diminished the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 legislation designed to prevent voting discrimination.

Legal battles over Alabama’s congressional boundaries have bounced back and forth between the Supreme Court and the federal three-judge panel over recent years.

State Republican lawmakers are attempting to reinstate a map they enacted in 2023 that the same three-judge panel had previously ruled discriminatory. This map would reduce the number of districts where Black voters constitute a majority or near-majority from two down to one among the state’s seven U.S. House seats. Approximately one-quarter of Alabama’s population is Black.

On May 11, the Supreme Court approved the state’s petition to remove the lower court’s earlier decision preventing Alabama from implementing the map.

In their dissenting opinion, the three liberal justices indicated that the three-judge panel retained the authority to reinstate its judicial prohibition against Alabama Republicans’ preferred map. Tuesday’s lower court decision did precisely that, leading to Alabama officials’ new Supreme Court filing.

President Donald Trump will convene his Cabinet Wednesday during a critical juncture in diplomatic efforts to conclude the conflict with Iran, following his recent assertions that his administration and Tehran had “largely negotiated” a settlement while discussions continue to shift.

The 79-year-old president recently completed another medical examination, stating “Everything checked out PERFECTLY” as he works to address questions about his age and fitness. The White House reported his more than three-hour visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center involved routine preventive medical and dental evaluations.

Congressional departures are reaching significant levels, with 73 out of 535 voting members not returning next term — the highest number at this calendar point since President Barack Obama’s time in office, based on an Associated Press review of congressional turnover data from 2013 onward.

Various factors drive these departures: some pursue different offices, others retire following lengthy service careers, and several leave rather than campaign in unfamiliar districts after extensive redistricting. Approximately two-thirds of departing members from both chambers are Republicans.

Construction crews are building a temporary octagon-shaped structure on the South Lawn for next month’s UFC event, scheduled to commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary and President Donald Trump’s 80th birthday.

Digital designs show the planned wire-mesh-enclosed fighting area for the June 14 event, surrounded by patriotic red, white and blue staging beneath a massive arch displaying stars and stripes designs and two large screens broadcasting live coverage. Thousands of temporary seats will encircle the structure and stage, with ringside areas designated for a complete marching band.

“I have never seen anybody want anything so much as people want those tickets,” Trump said recently. “That’s gonna be something.”

Through social media, Trump praised Paxton for a “tremendous win” and pledged that “I will do some nice, big, beautiful rallies for Ken. Texas, this will be FUN!

Trump also praised Cornyn “for having run a strong and powerful race but, more importantly, having had a truly great career.”

When endorsing Paxton, Trump stated Cornyn “was not supportive of me when times were tough” and that “John was very late in backing me.”

However, Trump said Wednesday that, “John will remain my friend for a long time to come, as we both watch Ken become a fantastic, common-sense Senator.”

Joe Biden filed suit against the Justice Department Tuesday seeking to prevent release of audio recordings and transcripts from the former president’s conversation with a ghostwriter, materials gathered by the special counsel investigating his classified document handling.

Biden’s legal team filed the lawsuit in Washington’s federal court, claiming the Justice Department intends to provide the materials to Congress and a conservative organization, the Heritage Foundation, despite the department’s previous position that they were protected from disclosure under public records law.

Biden’s attorneys contended the release would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of President Biden’s privacy.”

“Every American, including a sitting or former Vice President, has a right to privacy in the personal conversations he has within his own home,” his attorneys wrote. “And when the U.S. Department of Justice obtains that private information through a criminal investigation, the Department bears a particular responsibility to protect it from disclosure.”

The Trump administration seeks to require all current and future federal workers to sign nondisclosure agreements, continuing efforts to prevent media leaks.

A draft notice, released Tuesday on the Office of Personnel Management website, is scheduled for official Federal Register publication Wednesday, requesting feedback on a proposed NDA for federal agencies covering “both new and existing employees.”

“The form is intended to document Federal employees’ acknowledgment of, and agreement to comply with, current legal obligations to safeguard nonpublic, confidential, or proprietary information, created or obtained through their official duties, while expressly preserving the right to make disclosures authorized by law,” the notice said.

The draft notice requests input on various aspects, including whether the NDA should apply solely to unclassified material and what suitable measures agencies might take regarding new or current workers who decline to sign.

Trump continues winning Republican primaries, though his strengthening control over his party may complicate November midterm success, when Republicans must appeal to a wider electorate frustrated with the president’s second term and economic conditions.

Republican operatives note this challenge grows due to the billionaire president’s casual approach to addressing Americans’ economic concerns, worsened by Trump’s trade uncertainties and his continuing Iran conflict.

Republican strategist David Urban, a Trump supporter, recognized the president’s methods are creating difficulties for his party.

“It’s going to be a tough fall unless things dramatically change,” Urban said.

He cautioned that Trump cannot afford a careless Iran war exit to end a conflict that has restricted global oil supplies and increased American gas prices.

“I think the president wants to help,” he said, but “you do not want to give the Iranians a win just because of the midterms.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton secured the Republican Senate nomination Tuesday, soundly defeating four-term Sen. John Cornyn in another race where Trump worked to remove an incumbent he considered insufficiently supportive.

Trump backed Paxton last week, describing him as a “true MAGA warrior.” Paxton’s Tuesday runoff victory makes Cornyn — initially elected to the Senate in 2002 — the first Republican Texas senator to lose his party’s renomination bid.

Celebration erupted throughout the ballroom at Paxton’s election night gathering when results were announced, and he addressed supporters chanting his name. He immediately credited Trump.

“When everyone in Washington told him to abandon me and abandon the people of Texas, he didn’t listen,” Paxton said. “President Trump is the leader of our party, and his endorsement is the most powerful force in politics.”

As he prepares to meet with top advisors, Trump expresses confidence about finalizing an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and provide justification that Iran’s nuclear capabilities have been sufficiently reduced to claim success, concluding a conflict that has proven politically damaging for Republicans.

However, Trump also faces the possibility that ending his chosen war may produce an unsatisfying conclusion.

The developing agreement delays numerous crucial matters for future resolution and has already subjected the president to sharp criticism — including from some supporters — that Iran’s hardline leadership will exit the conflict damaged but strengthened.

President Donald Trump is scheduled to convene his Cabinet Wednesday during a critical juncture in discussions aimed at concluding the conflict with Iran, coming just days after he claimed his administration and Tehran had “largely negotiated” a settlement while negotiations continue to remain uncertain.

As Trump prepares to meet with his senior advisors, he’s expressing optimism about reaching an agreement that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and give him credible grounds to argue that Iran’s nuclear capabilities have been sufficiently reduced to claim success, bringing to a close a conflict that has proven politically unpopular among Republicans.

The developing agreement delays numerous crucial matters for future resolution and has already subjected the president to harsh criticism — including from some of his own allies — that Iran’s extremist leadership will come out of the conflict damaged but strengthened.

In other political developments, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton handily beat four-term Sen. John Cornyn in the most recent race where Trump aimed to remove an incumbent he viewed as not sufficiently supportive. The controversy-ridden Republican will now face Democratic state Rep. James Talarico in November, with Senate control remaining uncertain.

Additionally, the 79-year-old president came out of another medical examination stating “Everything checked out PERFECTLY” after working to address questions about his age and energy levels. The White House reported his more than three hours at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center were dedicated to preventive medical and dental examinations.

Construction crews are building a temporary octagon-shaped cage on the South Lawn for next month’s UFC match, scheduled to commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary — and President Donald Trump’s 80th birthday. Online designs show what the finished, wire-mesh-fence-surrounded fighting area is anticipated to look like before the June 14 event, surrounded by a red, white and blue stage beneath a massive arch featuring stars and stripes designs and two large screens broadcasting the action live.

“I have never seen anybody want anything so much as people want those tickets,” Trump said recently. “That’s gonna be something.”

Through a social media message, Trump praised Paxton on a “tremendous win” and pledged that “I will do some nice, big, beautiful rallies for Ken. Texas, this will be FUN!

Trump also praised Cornyn “for having run a strong and powerful race but, more importantly, having had a truly great career.”

In his support of Paxton, Trump stated Cornyn “was not supportive of me when times were tough” and that “John was very late in backing me.”

However, Trump said Wednesday that, “John will remain my friend for a long time to come, as we both watch Ken become a fantastic, common-sense Senator.”

Joe Biden filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department on Tuesday attempting to prevent the release of audio recordings and transcripts from the former president’s conversation with a ghostwriter that were secured by the special counsel who examined his management of classified documents. Biden’s attorneys argued in a lawsuit filed in Washington’s federal court that the Justice Department intends to release the files to Congress and a conservative organization, the Heritage Foundation, after the department had previously contended that they were protected from disclosure under public records law.

Biden’s legal team contended that the disclosure would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of President Biden’s privacy.”

“Every American, including a sitting or former Vice President, has a right to privacy in the personal conversations he has within his own home,” his attorneys wrote. “And when the U.S. Department of Justice obtains that private information through a criminal investigation, the Department bears a particular responsibility to protect it from disclosure.”

The Trump administration is seeking to have all current and future federal employees sign nondisclosure agreements, as part of an ongoing effort to prevent leaks to the media. A draft notice, revealed Tuesday on the Office of Personnel Management website, is anticipated to be formally published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, requesting feedback on a proposed NDA to be utilized by federal agencies for “both new and existing employees.”

“The form is intended to document Federal employees’ acknowledgment of, and agreement to comply with, current legal obligations to safeguard nonpublic, confidential, or proprietary information, created or obtained through their official duties, while expressly preserving the right to make disclosures authorized by law,” the notice said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton secured the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate on Tuesday, soundly defeating four-term Sen. John Cornyn in the most recent race where Trump worked to remove an incumbent he considered insufficiently supportive. Trump backed Paxton last week, describing him as a “true MAGA warrior.” Paxton’s success in Tuesday’s runoff makes Cornyn — who was initially elected to the Senate in 2002 — the first Republican senator from Texas to lose the party’s nomination for reelection.

Applause echoed through the ballroom at Paxton’s election night celebration when the race was decided, and he addressed the stage to supporters chanting his name. He immediately credited Trump.

“When everyone in Washington told him to abandon me and abandon the people of Texas, he didn’t listen,” Paxton said. “President Trump is the leader of our party, and his endorsement is the most powerful force in politics.”

Immigration attorney Flavia Santos Lloyd found herself fielding call after call from anxious clients following the Trump administration’s announcement requiring individuals seeking permanent residency to submit applications from their native countries rather than from within the United States.

Lloyd struggled to provide clear guidance to her clients, recognizing that the perplexing new directive would create delays in the application process.

“It has a chilling effect because we have some cases that we were going to proceed and I can tell already, we should wait and see what’s going on,” she said.

On Friday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services revealed that foreign nationals currently in America who desire permanent residency must depart and submit their applications from their native countries, with some undetailed exceptions.

This declaration, which could impact hundreds of thousands of permanent residency applicants annually, represents the most recent immigration directive from the Republican administration that has bewildered attorneys, advocates and immigrants alike. The move also signals a shift by the administration toward restricting legal immigration pathways, following a previous focus on individuals residing in the country without authorization.

“This is simply an attempt to try to limit and scare people away from the legal immigration process,” immigration attorney Charles Kuck said, adding that he expected legal action against the change. “This is a scare tactic.”

With concerned immigrants and their employers overwhelming immigration law firms with inquiries, the actual impact remains uncertain, along with potential exceptions and how the directive will be implemented practically.

Certain permanent residency applicants were already encountering inquiries about their eligibility to apply domestically.

For over fifty years, foreign nationals with lawful status have been permitted to apply for and obtain permanent residence while remaining in America — including spouses of American citizens, work and student visa holders, and refugees and asylum seekers, among others.

This longstanding practice appeared to shift abruptly on Friday when USCIS posted the change on its website.

“From now on, an alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances,” the agency said. When questioned by The Associated Press, USCIS indicated that only individuals providing an “economic benefit” or “national interest” would likely qualify to apply domestically.

The agency explained that nonimmigrants, including students or temporary workers, maintain temporary status in America and should depart when their authorized period concludes.

USCIS additionally released a comprehensive policy memorandum serving as guidance for staff members who adjudicate these cases. Immigration specialists attempting to interpret the announcement noted the memo contained more subtle language, creating uncertainty about the actual scope of the modification.

Boundless Immigration, an immigration law firm, published a blog post presenting their understanding of the directive, stating that officers were being directed to “apply existing discretionary standards more rigorously” but concluded that the policy doesn’t entirely halt the status adjustment process for “eligible applicants” based on their visa category.

The firm referenced earlier policy memorandums regarding citizenship acquisition that had not resulted in stricter enforcement in practice.

Shev Dalal-Dheini, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, suggested the guidance might target individuals who exceeded their visa periods, such as parents of American citizens who remained after visa expiration, company employees who transferred to America, or individuals holding visas designated for clergy and religious workers.

“It seems like maybe who they’re targeting is potentially those whose period of stay lapsed while they were here,” she said.

Kevin Miner, a partner with immigration law firm Fragomen, anticipated that individuals holding employment-based visas, such as H-1Bs, would receive exemptions. These dual-intent visas permit nonimmigrant visa holders in America to pursue permanent residency. The memo specifically identified dual-intent visas as potential exception areas.

“Those probably are cases that will continue to precede business as usual and that we won’t see a significant impact,” said Miner, who noted Friday’s announcement caught people off guard.

Matthew Soerens, the U.S. director of church mobilization for World Relief, an organization assisting refugee resettlement in America, said language in the memo addressing cases requiring domestic status adjustment provides the organization “hope” and “expectation” that the guidance excludes refugees.

Refugees are individuals fleeing their homeland who satisfy specific criteria for U.S. admission following extensive screening. They must complete permanent residency processing one year after arrival and cannot return home due to safety risks, Soerens explained.

The administration has dramatically reduced refugee admissions this year and restricted them to white South Africans.

Individuals who entered through humanitarian parole, which permits presidents to admit people for humanitarian purposes and which President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration significantly expanded, could also face consequences, Soerens noted.

Many such individuals might already have family in America or married American citizens — both situations potentially providing permanent residency pathways that could now become complicated.

These complexities make providing general legal counsel challenging, Dalal-Dheini said.

“It’s going to be a very case by case specific thing,” she said.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association reported that several individuals in permanent residency interviews under the new guidance encountered previously unasked questions on Tuesday.

One applicant seeking permanent residency based on marriage to an American citizen was questioned about why they applied to adjust status domestically instead of returning home and applying at the embassy there. They were asked whether any factors would prevent them from applying in their home country and if they maintained family there.

Another individual was instructed to submit a form demonstrating why they should be permitted to apply domestically and was told evidence should prove they wouldn’t become a financial burden or “public charge” on America, potentially including their 2025 tax return, an employer letter stating their salary, and bank statements.

Lloyd, the immigration attorney, said she has contacted her corporate and individual clients informing them she is monitoring the situation and will contact them once she obtains additional guidance and practical applications.

She believes the policy will discourage some companies from pursuing permanent residency for their clients.

“I don’t want everybody to panic,” she said. “My advice to them is wait and see.”

The administration offered few details regarding President Trump’s medical examination at Walter Reed on Tuesday, marking his third visit to the medical facility within a span of 13 months. The minimal disclosure from the White House has prompted critics to express concerns about transparency surrounding the president’s health status.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump plans to convene his Cabinet Wednesday during a critical juncture in discussions aimed at concluding the Iran conflict, coming just days after he declared his administration and Tehran had “largely negotiated” an agreement, though negotiations remain unstable.

While preparing to meet with his senior advisors, Trump expresses optimism about finalizing an agreement that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and give him grounds to claim Iran’s nuclear threat has been sufficiently reduced to declare success, bringing to a close a conflict that has proven politically damaging for Republicans.

However, Trump also faces the possibility that ending his chosen war may result in an unsatisfying conclusion.

The developing agreement postpones numerous crucial matters for future resolution and has already subjected the president to sharp criticism — including from his own allies — who argue Iran’s extremist leadership will exit the conflict damaged yet strengthened. This situation unfolds as midterm congressional elections approach and Republicans express concern that increasing expenses and fuel costs are souring American voters’ attitudes.

Negotiations became more complex following U.S. military strikes on missile facilities and mine-laying vessels in southern Iran Monday, which the Pentagon described as “defensive” actions. The U.S. claimed it showed “restraint” given the ongoing ceasefire, while Iran condemned the strikes as evidence of “bad faith and unreliability.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated Tuesday that discussions with Iran regarding strait reopening and ceasefire extension — time the administration says could be used to work out nuclear agreement details — will require several additional days. “He’s either going to make a good deal or no deal,” Rubio told reporters.

Trump used social media Tuesday to complain that even if Tehran offered complete surrender, news outlets would portray the conflict’s end as Iran achieving “a Masterful and Brilliant Victory.”

Although Trump maintains an agreement is achievable, significant differences appear to exist between the U.S. and Iran on multiple important matters. The president also faces criticism from Republican allies, including Sens. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Ted Cruz of Texas, who believe the terms favor Tehran too heavily.

They oppose publicly revealed deal aspects they claim too closely mirror the nuclear pact former President Barack Obama made with Iran, which Trump eliminated during his first presidency.

The proposed agreement would have Tehran surrender its highly enriched uranium stockpile — a central Trump requirement — in exchange for sanctions relief. This information comes from two regional officials and one senior Trump administration official, all speaking anonymously about the sensitive talks.

One regional official with direct negotiation knowledge said the method for Iran’s uranium surrender would be determined during a 60-day period. Some would likely be diluted, while the remainder would go to a third nation, the official explained.

Iran possesses 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium enriched to 60% purity, just a short technical step from weapons-grade 90% levels, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran has not publicly agreed to surrender its uranium.

Trump stated Monday on Truth Social that the uranium, believed buried beneath nuclear facilities damaged by U.S. airstrikes last year, would either be given to the U.S. or “destroyed in place or, at another acceptable location, with the Atomic Energy Commission, or its equivalent, being witness to this process and event.” This comment indicates Trump is softening his previous demand that the U.S. control Iran’s uranium stockpile.

Another unresolved matter is whether the ceasefire will include Israel’s operations against Hezbollah, the Iranian-supported militant organization in Lebanon. Iran has demanded that Lebanon be included in any ceasefire agreement with the United States.

The administration appears to maintain flexibility on Lebanon. The developing memorandum calls for a ceasefire between the U.S. and its allies against Iran and its proxies like Hezbollah, but also emphasizes Israel’s right to act against immediate threats and in self-defense.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Tuesday that Israeli forces are “deepening its operation” in Lebanon.

Jonathan Conricus, a former spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, said Israel anticipates Iran would quickly use sanctions relief to rebuild military capabilities and support proxy groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza.

“We’re not done fighting, because the Iranian regime isn’t done,” said Conricus, who is a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.

Trump said Monday that any Iran war agreement should require several additional nations, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan, to join the Abraham Accords, the U.S.-facilitated agreements from Trump’s first term designed to normalize diplomatic and economic relations with Israel.

Trump’s confidence that other Middle Eastern and majority Muslim nations could quickly join the accords may be overly optimistic.

For instance, Saudi Arabia, the most powerful Arab nation and long considered the most valuable target for normalization efforts, has maintained that establishing a guaranteed pathway to a Palestinian state remains a requirement. This is something Israel strongly opposes.

Trump promoted the Abraham Accords during a weekend call with Middle Eastern allied leaders.

Barbara Leaf, a retired U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and senior State Department official during the Biden administration, said officials from Gulf nations on the call informed her that Trump’s proposal was met with “stunned silence.” Someone familiar with the call disagreed with that description and said some regional allies responded favorably to the president’s invitation to join the accords. This person spoke anonymously about the private discussion.

Leaf, a distinguished diplomatic fellow at the Middle East Institute, said Middle Eastern U.S. allies understand that Iran will probably use sanctions relief money to strengthen its military capabilities. Nevertheless, they have supported Trump’s efforts to end the conflict.

“They see no other way out,” Leaf said of American regional allies. “And they see no other way out because of many of these early mistakes that the president and the administration made in conducting the war.”

Primary runoff elections in Texas have wrapped up, finalizing the candidate matchups for this November’s general election in key races across the state.

The completion of these runoffs has established the final lineups for major contests, including a significant U.S. Senate race, while providing important insights for both political parties moving forward.

With the primary season now behind them, candidates and their campaigns will shift their focus to the general election battle that lies ahead in November.

Former President Donald Trump continues his winning streak in Republican primary contests, recently backing Ken Paxton before his Tuesday runoff victory over Sen. John Cornyn in Texas.

However, Trump’s increasing control over the GOP may create challenges for winning November’s midterm elections, as Republicans must appeal to a wider voter base that has grown critical of the president’s second term and economic conditions.

The challenge grows more complex, according to Republican operatives, due to the former president’s casual approach to addressing Americans’ economic struggles, which have been worsened by Trump’s trade policies and his continuing conflict with Iran.

Republican strategist David Urban, a Trump ally, admitted the president’s strategy is creating difficulties for his party.

“It’s going to be a tough fall unless things dramatically change,” Urban said.

He cautioned that Trump must avoid a careless withdrawal from the Iran conflict to end a situation that has restricted global oil supplies and increased gas prices for Americans.

“I think the president wants to help,” he said, but “you do not want to give the Iranians a win just because of the midterms.”

Beyond higher prices resulting from Trump’s tariffs and Iran conflict, the president has consistently called affordability worries a “hoax.”

Trump suggested that gas price increases — rising more than 50% in the U.S. since Trump and Israel began attacking Iran — represent “peanuts.” He stated he doesn’t consider Americans’ personal finances “even a little bit” when considering Iran options, claiming that stopping the country from acquiring nuclear weapons remains his sole focus.

This occurs while Trump pressures Congress to authorize $1 billion for his White House ballroom project and approve $1.8 billion for restitution payments to people who claim they faced political prosecution — possibly including those who violently stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

This series of events creates challenges that Republicans in competitive House districts, Senate races, and statewide campaigns must address this fall.

“You keep the House and Senate by having a message, by dealing with the issues voters are clearly complaining about,” said Republican strategist Rick Tyler, a Trump critic. “The administration has utterly failed to do this.”

More than two weeks have passed since the Republican National Committee sent messaging guidance to supporters mentioning economic issues, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Last week’s only talking points focused on supporting Trump’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund.”

“Democrats and the fake-news media are deliberately ignoring the fact that this fund is not limited to Republicans or Trump supporters,” stated the May 23 message.

Two weeks prior, the RNC urged supporters to commend the president and his party for “delivering lower costs.”

The messaging overlooked rising gas costs but highlighted significant decreases in egg, school supply, and butter prices compared to last year.

“President Trump promised to lower prices, and he is doing just that,” the talking points stated.

Republicans started Trump’s second presidency holding a 220-215 House majority. They’ve improved their chances of maintaining control by redrawing congressional boundaries in multiple Republican-controlled states. Democrats remain optimistic about flipping sufficient seats to regain control.

Republicans maintain a larger 53-47 Senate majority. Leaders from both parties acknowledge the chamber’s control remains uncertain. Some Republicans criticize Trump for supporting candidates like Paxton, who has endured years of controversy and may be more susceptible in a general election against Democratic nominee James Talarico.

Viet Shelton, a spokesman for House Democrats’ campaign committee, said Trump’s redistricting efforts reveal his understanding of his party’s difficulties.

“They’ve given up on trying to win over voters fair and square, so they’re resorting to rigging the midterms through illegal gerrymanders and voter suppression,” Shelton said.

Democratic advisers report Trump’s challenges have altered dynamics in numerous races. Their target list of Republican-held House seats now encompasses many districts Trump won by substantial margins. In special and off-year elections since Trump’s second inauguration, Democrats have consistently exceeded their 2024 performance.

Voters should anticipate seeing Trump’s economic statements in Democratic advertisements this fall. Party operatives indicate their broader approach acknowledges the president’s populist appeal while arguing he and his Republican supporters have failed to deliver results.

In U.S. House districts in Iowa, this involves highlighting tariffs’ impact on agricultural economics and how the Iran conflict has raised diesel fuel and fertilizer costs. In Texas’s Rio Grande Valley, this means discussing how Trump’s immigration enforcement has disrupted the local economy in Latino communities.

Republican strategists express concern about Trump’s economic focus deficit and his team’s lack of transparency regarding campaign fund deployment.

The pro-Trump super PAC MAGA Inc. possessed over $356 million at April’s end. Many Republican strategists report receiving no clear indication of Trump’s team’s spending plans for timing, location, and methods, according to multiple operatives speaking anonymously about private discussions.

They identify one positive development in James Blair, Trump’s political general, departing the White House to concentrate on midterm elections.

The White House declined to comment on the president’s strategy and midterm confidence.

Highlighting Republicans’ dilemma, Trump remains a fundraising powerhouse. He assisted House Republicans in collecting $36.8 million at a single fundraising dinner last month, setting a committee record.

Mike Marinella, spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Trump “puts House Republicans in the strongest possible position to defy history and win in November.”

Naturally, candidates must secure Republican nominations to participate in fall campaigns.

“The president has chosen to be aggressive in endorsing candidates he believes are the best advocates for his agenda and have been loyal to him,” Republican campaign veteran Chip Lake said.

Lake leads an independent expenditure effort supporting Georgia Republican Burt Jones, the Trump-endorsed candidate in a June 16 gubernatorial primary runoff.

“It’s difficult, if not impossible to win a primary in today’s environment if the president is working against you,” Lake said. Despite general election consequences, he added, independents and moderates “make up a very tiny, even minuscule portion of Republican primaries.”

A wealthy California Democrat has shattered national records for political advertising expenditures in his quest to become the state’s chief executive, according to campaign finance data.

Tom Steyer, a billionaire who previously managed hedge funds before becoming a progressive political activist, has invested or committed over $195 million toward television, cable, and radio advertisements, with spending continuing to climb, based on information gathered by AdImpact, which monitors political advertising.

The massive advertising campaign by the former White House hopeful has sparked accusations that he’s attempting to purchase the state’s top political position. His advertising expenditures dwarf those of his closest Democratic competitor, Xavier Becerra, by more than 2,000 percent as both candidates compete for advancement to the general election in November.

Across the United States, no other candidate approaches Steyer’s spending levels.

In second place nationally, Georgia Republican healthcare business leader Rick Jackson has invested approximately $83 million on campaign advertisements in his gubernatorial primary contest, which is advancing to a June runoff election. The third-highest spender is Jackson’s Republican opponent, Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, who enjoys President Donald Trump’s backing and has committed nearly $31 million to advertising, AdImpact reports.

Behind Jones was Democratic U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, who invested more than $28 million on advertisements in an unsuccessful Senate campaign.

Katie Porter, a former U.S. House member competing among seven prominent Democrats in the California contest, has consistently attacked Steyer for utilizing his personal wealth to maintain constant voter exposure while facing minimal financial competition from other candidates.

“She isn’t spending hundreds of millions of dollars of personal wealth trying to buy the governor’s office,” her campaign wrote in an email to supporters.

Steyer’s advertising expenditure has surpassed the previous 2010 benchmark established by Republican Meg Whitman, who invested $178.5 million total in an unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign, primarily using personal funds. That contest represented the most expensive statewide campaign in American political history at the time. However, when accounting for inflation, Whitman maintains the state spending record, though her total covered the complete election cycle rather than just the primary phase.

Despite his unprecedented financial commitment, Steyer hasn’t established a commanding lead in the competitive race. He remains part of a top-tier group of several contenders — including Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton — as the campaign approaches the June 2 primary election. Mail-in voting commenced earlier this month.

Nevertheless, Steyer’s financial resources provide him a significant promotional advantage during the campaign’s critical final phase. He’s maintained consistent advertising and digital content challenging Becerra’s qualifications and track record, while Becerra, a former state attorney general and Biden administration health secretary, lacks comparable resources for effective responses.

One Becerra advertisement attempted to appeal to voters potentially overwhelmed by Steyer’s advertising saturation. It featured peaceful imagery of Joshua trees, ocean waves, and towering redwoods with a subtle message: “You can stop the endless Tom Steyer ads. Vote Xavier Becerra.”

Steyer’s monetary advantage has enabled him to expand his campaign presence beyond conventional television and radio spots, maintaining regular content on digital platforms including YouTube and Instagram. The New York Times revealed his campaign compensated a progressive Texas influencer $100,000 to support Steyer’s election bid. The Sacramento Bee also reported Becerra had engaged an influencer.

Numerous voters have delayed casting ballots in a contest lacking a prominent frontrunner and clear leader. The ballot will feature more than 50 candidates. California employs a “top two” primary format placing all candidates on a single ballot, with only the highest two vote recipients proceeding to November, irrespective of political party.

“In a race this close, it all matters,” said Democratic consultant Andrew Acosta.

Historical evidence demonstrates that financial resources don’t guarantee electoral success.

Billionaire developer Rick Caruso invested more than $100 million in 2022 pursuing the Los Angeles mayoral position, largely using personal funds, but suffered a decisive loss to Mayor Karen Bass, who spent significantly less than Caruso’s total. Billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg committed over $1 billion of personal wealth to his 2020 presidential campaign before withdrawing. Steyer’s financial resources failed to establish him as a viable contender in the 2020 presidential race, leading to his early withdrawal following disappointing results in the South Carolina primary.

Democratic San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan’s gubernatorial campaign received support from independent committees funded with millions from technology executives and venture capital investors, yet he struggled to build momentum in the race.

Steyer has never served in elected office.

During a 2019 Associated Press interview, when asked about accusations of attempting to purchase the presidency, Steyer responded:

“I don’t think that’s possible,” Steyer said at the time, before adding, “I’m never going to apologize for succeeding in business. That’s America, right?”

The election occurs as California faces ongoing homelessness challenges, wildfire insurance availability issues, anticipated budget deficits, and housing expenses beyond many working families’ means. Voters simultaneously confront increasing daily costs for food, utilities, and gasoline.

The AdImpact information excludes advertisements on certain popular streaming platforms like Hulu and YouTube or direct mail campaigns.

Immigration detainees under federal custody are ending their own lives at rates never before seen in the agency’s 20-year existence, exposing what specialists describe as critical breakdowns in medical care and supervision, a new investigation by The Associated Press reveals.

The probe discovered that no fewer than 10 individuals have committed suicide while in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody since President Donald Trump resumed office in January 2025 and directed the agency to expand arrests and removals. Seven of these fatalities have occurred since October, marking the highest number recorded in any fiscal year. Historically, ICE has documented only one suicide death annually, or sometimes none at all.

This surge in self-inflicted deaths outpaces the expansion of ICE’s detained population, representing almost 20% of the 51 individuals who have perished in agency custody since January 2025.

Lauren Bies, acting assistant secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, characterized suicide deaths within ICE facilities as continuing to be “extremely rare.”

According to Bies, facility personnel adhere to established procedures designed to safeguard detainees displaying warning signs of self-harm, and ICE mandates yearly suicide prevention education. She stated that detainees are provided complete healthcare services, including psychological support.

The investigation’s findings show that nine of the ten deceased were Hispanic males, while one held Chinese citizenship. The victims averaged 32 years of age.

Most had spent fewer than 30 days in ICE custody, with some having been detained for only several days, based on AP’s analysis of agency records, medical examiner reports, coroner determinations and law enforcement files.

The victims included a 19-year-old worker from Mexico, a 27-year-old house painter from Colombia, and a 36-year-old restaurant employee from Nicaragua. Seven of the ten individuals had clean records regarding violent offenses.

These fatalities have exposed significant gaps in care and supervision throughout ICE’s network, where the detained population has grown by 50% to 60,000 individuals during Trump’s current presidency, the investigation determined.

Five deaths occurred at facilities operated by established ICE detention contractors, CoreCivic and the GEO Group. Another death happened at a facility run by an inexperienced contractor that ICE subsequently terminated. Three fatalities took place in sheriff-operated jails, while one occurred at a federal correctional institution.

“We are deeply saddened by and take very seriously the passing of any individual in our care,” stated CoreCivic spokesperson Brian Todd.

GEO Group spokesperson Christopher Ferreira explained that his company provides staff training on suicide prevention and works “to maintain a safe and secure environment in compliance with the standards and requirements set by the federal government.” County jail administrators chose not to provide statements.

The AP investigation determined that ICE detention facilities have consistently failed to meet standards in ways that breach the agency’s own requirements.

Personnel overlooked warning signs of psychological distress, postponed mental health interventions and failed to properly supervise detainees already identified as high-risk. They also allowed detainees access to items that could be used for self-harm.

In certain instances, troubled detainees were placed in solitary confinement, a practice that can worsen feelings of shame and powerlessness, according to specialists.

Three facilities where ICE detainees took their own lives have had difficulty meeting the agency’s mandate that detainees undergo medical and psychological evaluations within 12 hours of arrival, based on inspection documentation and jail records.

Specialists described the record number of suicides as evidence that officials are inadequately supervising the detention of tens of thousands of immigrants caught up in the Trump administration’s intensive removal efforts.

“Something is going profoundly wrong from any kind of public health or mental health perspective,” explained Dr. Sanjay Basu, a University of California-San Francisco epidemiologist who co-authored research documenting rising death and suicide rates among ICE detainees. “This is one of those alarming, sudden increases.”

Dr. Homer Venters, former chief medical officer of New York City jails and a specialist on ICE detainee deaths, described the suicide increase as terrifying.

The rise “reflects failures in how the system’s being operated, and particularly failures in how the first stages of coming into detention are happening so that people aren’t being assessed adequately,” he explained. “And then if that receiving screening picks up red flags, they’re not acted on in a way that reduces the risk of them having preventable death.”

The 2024 suicide of 27-year-old Brayan Rayo Garzon at the Phelps County Jail in Rolla, Missouri, demonstrates shortcomings in how facilities evaluate, monitor and treat such detainees, specialists noted.

The Colombian national had been arrested by police in St. Louis on a minor fraud charge and transferred to ICE custody. The agency transported him to the Missouri jail, which had recently begun accepting ICE detainees to increase revenue.

The facility failed to conduct an intake evaluation on Rayo for 35 hours. At that point, he displayed difficulty breathing, reported feeling anxious and asked for psychological treatment that was never provided.

Rayo became sick with COVID-19 in subsequent days, suffering from body aches, fever, chills and nausea. The jail scheduled him twice for routine mental health appointments, but both were cancelled—first due to staff concerns, then because of his illness.

Rayo was placed in medical isolation, confining him alone in a cell and preventing his nightly phone conversations with his mother. On his fourth day, he wrote notes in Spanish to English-speaking guards pleading to contact her.

Less than an hour later, he was discovered unconscious. He died the following day. An autopsy confirmed he had taken his own life.

Brayan Rayo Garzon was desperate. Held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he had spent four days in isolation at a Missouri jail while fighting COVID-19 symptoms of fever and chills.

Medical records reveal his mental health treatment request had been delayed, and jail staff had banned Rayo from his nightly phone calls to his mother to prevent virus transmission.

In handwritten messages, he begged his guards to arrange a conversation with her. “I feel in my heart that she’s very worried about me,” he wrote in Spanish.

A guard took the note and left. Jail records show that within an hour, he was discovered unconscious in his cell. Medical examiners ruled his death a suicide.

Rayo’s April 2025 death marked the beginning of a troubling surge in suicides among ICE detainees that has concerned public health experts and detention specialists. They describe the record number of suicide deaths as evidence that officials are inadequately supervising the detention of tens of thousands of immigrants caught in the Trump administration’s intensive deportation efforts.

A comprehensive Associated Press investigation discovered that no fewer than 10 detainees, all male, have taken their own lives since President Donald Trump assumed office in January 2025, a rate that dramatically outpaces the increase in the detainee population, based on analysis of ICE data, autopsy findings, coroner determinations, and police documentation. Since October, seven deaths have been ruled suicides, already setting a record for any fiscal year in the agency’s existence. ICE typically records one or zero such deaths each year.

“Something is going profoundly wrong from any kind of public health or mental health perspective,” said Dr. Sanjay Basu, a University of California-San Francisco epidemiologist who cowrote a study documenting the increase in mortality and suicide rates among ICE detainees. “This is one of those alarming, sudden increases.”

Nine of those who died were Hispanic men from four different countries, the AP discovered. One individual was a Chinese citizen. They averaged 32 years old. While Trump has described deportation targets as the “worst of the worst,” seven of the 10 had no history of violent offenses in the U.S.

These suicides represent nearly one-fifth of the 51 deaths in ICE custody since January 2025. Most of those deaths resulted from natural causes, and experts believe many could have been prevented with prompt medical attention.

Department of Homeland Security acting assistant secretary Lauren Bies said suicide deaths in ICE custody remain “extremely rare.”

Bies said detention staff follow protocols to protect detainees who show signs of self-harming and that ICE requires annual suicide prevention training. She said detainees receive comprehensive healthcare, including mental health services.

The causes behind any suicide are complicated, and each death typically involves multiple contributing elements, experts note. ICE detainees describe overwhelming stress following detention, anxiety about returning to countries where they may face danger, and frustration and isolation from communication difficulties due to language barriers.

Detainees can also experience hopelessness because of immigration law’s complexity. Unlike those in the criminal justice system, most detainees lack legal representation and their detention for immigration violations is not intended as punishment.

ICE assumes responsibility for their welfare when they enter detention, and experts say properly managed facilities should experience few, if any, suicides. This is because staff can take measures to reduce the likelihood that detainees harm themselves by identifying at-risk individuals, providing them care and monitoring them carefully, the experts explained.

AP’s investigation found that ICE detention centers have repeatedly fallen short in ways that violate ICE’s own standards.

A review of the 10 suicide deaths showed the men died throughout ICE’s detention network, including at centers operated by private contractors for years and county jails that recently became ICE partners. The AP discovered that facility staff overlooked warning signs of distress, postponed mental health treatment and failed to monitor detainees already considered at risk. They also allowed detainees access to materials that could be used for self-harm, according to AP’s examination of ICE inspection reports and death records.

In some instances, they placed distressed detainees in isolation, which can worsen feelings of humiliation and helplessness, experts say.

ICE has consistently stated that it screens detainees within 12 hours of arrival for medical, dental and mental health conditions.

At least three of the nine facilities where ICE detainees died by suicide have had difficulty meeting that standard, according to ICE inspection reports and jail records.

Dr. Homer Venters, former chief medical officer of New York City jails who previously consulted with ICE on preventing detainee deaths, called the rise in suicides terrifying.

The increase “reflects failures in how the system’s being operated, and particularly failures in how the first stages of coming into detention are happening so that people aren’t being assessed adequately,” Venters said. “And then if that receiving screening picks up red flags, they’re not acted on in a way that reduces the risk of them having preventable death.”

Among those who ended their own lives was a 19-year-old from Mexico who had been detained after a misdemeanor traffic violation while riding his scooter.

Another was a 36-year-old restaurant employee who lost touch with his family in Nicaragua after ICE detained him in Minnesota and transferred him to a crowded facility in Texas. A third was a 45-year-old who had repeatedly entered the U.S.-Mexico border illegally and had an extensive criminal history.

Rayo, who took his own life after pleading to speak with his mother, was a Colombian military veteran who had worked as a street vendor in his homeland. A week after celebrating his 26th birthday in 2023, his family crossed the U.S. border in California. He was held for three months before being allowed to live with family in St. Louis, records and interviews reveal.

His mother, Adriana Garzon, said Rayo adapted quickly to American life, forming friendships easily and working as a house painter and food delivery driver. He wanted to save money to hire an attorney to help him remain in the country after a judge in 2024 ordered his return to Colombia, she said.

He was arrested in March 2025 by St. Louis police after being caught using a stolen credit card, which he had received from a friend, at a vape shop, court records show. ICE then took him into custody. An ICE record obtained by AP classified Rayo as a laborer who was a low risk to public safety.

ICE placed Rayo in the Phelps County jail in Rolla, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) from St. Louis.

The deaths have exposed gaps in treatment and oversight across ICE’s system, where the detained population has increased by 50% to 60,000 during Trump’s second term.

Five died in centers operated by longtime ICE detention partners, CoreCivic and the GEO Group. A sixth died at a facility run by an inexperienced contractor that ICE has since replaced. Three died in jails operated by sheriffs, and one at a federal prison.

“We are deeply saddened by and take very seriously the passing of any individual in our care,” CoreCivic spokesperson Brian Todd said.

GEO Group spokesperson Christopher Ferreira said the company trains staff on suicide prevention and seeks “to maintain a safe and secure environment in compliance with the standards and requirements set by the federal government.” Officials at the three jails either declined comment or didn’t return messages.

Leo Cruz Silva, a 34-year-old who had repeatedly illegally entered the country from Mexico, experienced a severe mental health crisis following his detention after an arrest for public intoxication last fall in a St. Louis suburb, records show.

For two nights in Missouri’s Ste. Genevieve County Jail, Cruz screamed, hid under his bed and reported hallucinations, according to an ICE report on his death. Yet he did not get help quickly.

A nurse ordered antipsychotic medications and planned to get him treatment the next week, the ICE report said.

On the third day, he was found dead in his cell.

Chaofeng Ge arrived in ICE custody last summer at a Pennsylvania facility run by the GEO Group in mental distress, having pleaded guilty to a minor gift card fraud and attempted suicide in state custody, said David Rankin, an attorney representing Ge’s family.

In five days at the facility, he did not get mental health treatment and was unable to communicate because no one spoke Mandarin, Rankin said. Ultimately, Ge went unmonitored before he was found hanged in a shower stall.

“It’s clear that ICE has taken very few steps to ensure the safety of these people,” Rankin said. “They appear to want to make this process as cruel and inhuman as possible. It’s completely unacceptable.”

At Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas, 36-year-old Victor Diaz died by suicide in a medical holding room in January, according to an ICE report. He had been moved into isolation after reporting harassment by fellow detainees, the report said.

Days earlier at the same facility, Geraldo Lunas Campos died of asphyxia after ICE said guards restrained him following a suicide attempt. His death was ruled a homicide by a medical examiner, and Trump administration officials said the FBI was investigating its circumstances.

ICE inspectors visited the facility in February, documenting 49 violations of detention standards at what was then ICE’s largest detention facility, according to their report.

The report found that staff did not record “required checks to prevent significant self-harm and suicide” while inspectors found tools and equipment unsecured and unaccounted for throughout the facility that could be used for harm. Calls to 911 show several other detainees had attempted suicide there.

At the time of the deaths and inspections, Acquisition Logistics was the contractor running the facility. ICE has since replaced Acquisition Logistics with another contractor. Acquisition Logistics did not return messages seeking comment.

The Phelps County Jail had started taking ICE detainees a month before Rayo’s arrival. Sheriff Michael Kirn, a Republican in a county where voters overwhelmingly supported Trump’s reelection, told commissioners his department’s budget was hurting and partnering with ICE could generate millions in revenue.

Records show Rayo’s trouble started immediately. It took the jail 35 hours to conduct the initial medical screening that ICE promises within 12 hours, according to jail records obtained by the AP under the open records law.

Rayo exhibited labored breathing and told a nurse he was anxious and wanted mental health treatment.

A nurse who didn’t speak Spanish used a “handheld translator” to assess Rayo, concluding he denied thoughts of suicide and depression, according to the documents compiled by the Missouri State Highway Patrol during an investigation into Rayo’s death.

She recommended him for the general population, listing his physical and mental condition as stable, records show. And she referred him for a routine mental health appointment.

Two days later, he reported head pain and body aches. Staff learned he was positive for exposure to tuberculosis bacteria. He was sent to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with COVID-19. He was returned to jail the following day.

The mental health appointment was scheduled but canceled due to “mental health clinic time and staff,” a jail record shows. Two days later, they again canceled his appointment, this time citing his coronavirus infection.

The delays violated an ICE standard requiring mental health treatment within a week of a referral.

Bies, the DHS spokesperson, said Rayo received “high-quality medical care during his time in ICE custody.”

To ease his anxiety, Rayo called his mother before bed to share a Catholic blessing. “I gave him strength,” said Garzon, whose first name Adriana was tattooed on her son’s arm.

As Rayo grew sicker with nausea, chills and aches, staff moved him into a cinderblock isolation cell with a surveillance camera overhead for closer monitoring and to prevent the spread of disease. He was not allowed to call his mother.

On his fourth day of isolation, Rayo passed two notes under his door, begging guards to let him talk to his mom. In one, which was reviewed by AP, he appealed to the guard’s humanity. “I know you have family, and you know that they worry about us,” he wrote in Spanish. “God bless you.”

The English-speaking guard used a colleague’s phone to translate the notes, and wrote in a report that he planned to follow up.

Within an hour, guards found Rayo unconscious on his bed with a sheet around his neck.

Emergency responders tried to revive him, transporting him to a hospital. That’s when an official called Rayo’s mother — to let her know her son was in very bad shape and would be flown to a St. Louis medical center. At the hospital, a doctor gave her the devastating news: Her son was dead.

An intense redistricting push before November’s elections has transformed congressional voting maps for millions of Americans across the nation — and the process continues to unfold.

Following President Donald Trump’s call for Texas Republicans to redraw U.S. House boundaries last year, GOP lawmakers in Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Tennessee have also approved new maps that may help their party secure additional seats in upcoming midterm contests. Louisiana appears poised to follow suit, while Alabama Republicans are challenging a court ruling that blocked their preferred map.

To date, Republicans believe their redistricting work could yield as many as 14 additional seats, while Democrats anticipate gaining six seats through new boundaries in California and Utah.

Trump is banking on this uncommon mid-decade redistricting to help Republicans maintain control of the narrowly divided House, even with unfavorable approval numbers and historical patterns showing the incumbent party typically loses seats during midterms.

Here’s an overview of recent developments in the redistricting fight:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in April against Louisiana’s congressional map, striking down the plan that included two majority-Black districts represented by Democrats as an unlawful racial gerrymander. This decision led Republican Gov. Jeff Landry to delay Louisiana’s May 16 congressional primary until later in the summer, providing time for map revisions.

The state House is set to review a modified congressional map this week that would boost Republicans’ prospects of capturing one of those two seats. The Senate has already approved a different version of the updated map. Both chambers are working to reach agreement on a redistricting plan before their legislative session concludes on June 1.

Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall announced he is challenging a preliminary injunction issued Tuesday by a federal judicial panel that bars the state from implementing a Republican-designed House map in the midterm elections.

The judges determined the plan, featuring just one majority-Black district, “intentionally discriminated based on race.” They directed the state to keep using a court-mandated map with two districts where Black residents make up a majority or near-majority. Democrats currently represent both of those seats.

The Missouri Supreme Court has already dismissed two challenges to a new U.S. House map that improves Republicans’ odds of winning another seat by reconfiguring a Democratic-held district centered in Kansas City.

Judges will hear arguments Wednesday in a third challenge asserting that no extraordinary circumstances justified Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe’s decision to convene lawmakers for a special redistricting session last year.

As early in-person voting started Tuesday for South Carolina’s June 9 primaries, the Republican-controlled state Senate ended an effort to redraw the state’s congressional districts this year. A proposal previously approved by the House aimed to reshape the state’s sole Democratic-held district to improve Republicans’ winning chances.

However, some Republican senators argued it was too late for any modifications. Others worried the plan might backfire by incorporating too many Democratic voters into Republican-held districts.

Voting rights organizations argue Florida’s new congressional districts should be overturned for violating a state prohibition on intentional partisan gerrymandering. But a state judge on Tuesday refused to grant a preliminary injunction preventing use of the map in the midterm elections.

The judge stated the plaintiffs hadn’t demonstrated their partisanship claims were likely to prevail. Voting rights groups said they were rapidly appealing to a higher court and would pursue the case to the state Supreme Court if needed.

A federal court on Tuesday refused to grant a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit claiming Tennessee’s new U.S. House districts are racially discriminatory. The new Republican-designed map splits up a majority-Black district in Memphis — a city where over half the population is Black — improving Republicans’ chances of winning the state’s only Democratic-held seat.

This case represents one of several challenges to the map currently moving through the court system.

PLANO, Texas — Despite extensive efforts to demonstrate allegiance, it ultimately proved insufficient.

For more than a year, U.S. Senator John Cornyn attempted to demonstrate to Donald Trump and Texas Republicans that he stood firmly with the president.

Cornyn shared an image of himself reading Trump’s “The Art of the Deal.” He introduced legislation to designate a portion of interstate highway in Trump’s honor. Most notably, the Senate institutionalist who had long defended the filibuster changed his stance in an unsuccessful attempt to push forward voting restrictions that represent a key priority for the president.

The strategy failed. Tuesday saw Cornyn join a growing list of Republicans who suffered primary defeats after losing favor with a president who shows little patience for disagreement and appears to have an endless desire for payback. The senator serving his fourth term was defeated by substantial margins by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whom Trump backed last week, calling him “a true MAGA Warrior.”

Regarding Cornyn, Trump declared he “was VERY disloyal to me,” according to his social media post.

Trump’s involvement in the Texas runoff followed weeks of successfully supporting primary opponents in Indiana, Louisiana and Kentucky as payback against sitting officials who opposed his agenda.

Cornyn’s efforts to escape a similar outcome caused discomfort even among his allies.

“You look at the positions he took to please the president and the groveling and whatever,” said former Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, a Republican and Trump critic who didn’t seek reelection during the president’s first midterm in 2018. “It was rather painful to watch.”

Cornyn’s defeat occurred despite significant political maneuvering and enormous campaign expenditures.

His campaign launched a commercial last summer — part of a remarkable nearly-$100-million advertising campaign by the senator and supporting organizations — featuring Cornyn addressing the camera directly and declaring, “I voted with President Trump 99% of the time.”

Cornyn’s campaign website prominently displays an image of Trump and Cornyn standing together with upward-pointing thumbs, designed to demonstrate unity. Further into the site, a section labeled “The Trump-Cornyn Record” highlights the senator’s efforts in securing support for Trump’s landmark 2017 tax reduction legislation.

Cornyn has also been promoting elements in Trump’s major tax-and-spending bill that fund construction along the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

The senator had criticized the project as “naive” during Trump’s 2016 campaign. However, in January, he appeared alongside a completed wall section in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, praising the measure’s $11 billion allocation for Texas contractors’ work “at the direction of the president of the United States, to whom I am very grateful.”

While Cornyn’s support for his party’s leader and president was typical, it contrasted sharply with comments Cornyn made in May 2023, as Trump was launching his presidential comeback effort.

“Trump’s time has passed him by,” he told reporters. “I don’t think President Trump understands that when you run in a general election, you have to appeal to voters beyond your base.”

Trump subsequently secured the nomination easily and won every competitive state in the general election.

Cornyn maintained close alignment with the president throughout the first 16 months of his second term, hoping for either his endorsement or his neutrality.

However, Trump remembered previous criticisms.

“John Cornyn is a good man, and I worked well with him, but he was not supportive of me when times were tough,” he wrote on social media while endorsing Paxton.

Cornyn had lightheartedly attempted to demonstrate Trump support, posting a social media image last year showing himself carefully reading Trump’s 1987 memoir and business guide, “The Art of the Deal.”

In a more direct approach, he proposed naming a section of U.S. highway extending from the Texas Gulf Coast to Montana as “Interstate 47,” honoring a 47th president known for his fondness for having things named after himself. In a news release about the proposal, issued just over two weeks before Tuesday’s runoff, Cornyn stated it would be called the “Trump Interstate.”

The most significant change occurred in March, after Trump had suggested he might endorse either Cornyn or Paxton in the runoff.

Paxton quickly announced he would consider withdrawing from the race if the Republican-controlled Senate eliminated the filibuster and approved the SAVE America Act, a package of voting restrictions that Trump has called a crucial component of his agenda.

The next week, Cornyn published an opinion piece in the New York Post — Trump’s preferred local newspaper — abandoning his previous filibuster support. He promised to “support whatever changes to Senate rules that may prove necessary” to move the bill “through the Senate and on the president’s desk for his signature.”

Flake observed with concern.

“I know John and his long-held positions on the filibuster and the Senate’s institutions,” he said. “No office is worth that.”

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration is developing proposals to potentially suspend international traveler and cargo operations at airports located in sanctuary cities that have refused to assist with immigration enforcement efforts.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin revealed during a Tuesday evening Fox News Channel interview with Sean Hannity that his department is considering such measures. Mullin stressed that while he has discussed the matter with White House officials, no final determination has been reached on whether to move forward.

Earlier this month, Mullin reportedly briefed U.S. travel industry leaders in private meetings about the department’s potential decision to halt customs and immigration services for international passengers, according to Reuters and other news outlets reporting last week.

The cities that could face such restrictions include Denver, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Newark, Seattle and San Francisco, according to Mullin’s statements.

Former Air Force service member Carlos De La Cruz secured the Republican Party’s nomination on Tuesday for Texas’ 35th congressional district, defeating John Lujan in the primary race, according to projections from U.S. media outlets.

The contest was held for the San Antonio-area congressional seat on May 26.

Former President Joe Biden filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday seeking to prevent the Justice Department from releasing audio recordings and transcripts from his conversations with a ghostwriter, materials that were collected during a special counsel investigation into his handling of classified documents.

The legal filing in Washington’s federal court claims the Justice Department intends to provide these materials to Congress and the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization, despite previously maintaining the files were protected from public disclosure under records laws.

Biden’s legal team contends the release would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of President Biden’s privacy.”

“Every American, including a sitting or former Vice President, has a right to privacy in the personal conversations he has within his own home,” his attorneys wrote. “And when the U.S. Department of Justice obtains that private information through a criminal investigation, the Department bears a particular responsibility to protect it from disclosure.”

The disputed materials include audio recordings and written records from Biden’s conversations at his residence during 2016 and 2017 with Mark Zwonitzer, who assisted Biden with writing his two memoirs. Special counsel Robert Hur examined these files during his investigation into the president’s inappropriate retention of classified materials from his tenure as a senator and vice president.

Hur’s year-long investigation resulted in a 345-page report that raised questions about Biden’s age and mental fitness but concluded no criminal charges should be filed against the then-81-year-old. Hur determined there was inadequate evidence to successfully pursue prosecution in court.

Biden has also challenged separately the release of audio from his interview with Hur. In 2024, the House voted to find Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for declining to provide that audio after the White House claimed executive privilege, protecting it from congressional review.

Transcripts from five hours of Biden’s interviews with federal investigators were made public that same year. Although Biden insisted he handled classified information responsibly, the transcript revealed he was sometimes unclear about dates and specifics and stated he was unfamiliar with the documentation process for some sensitive materials he managed.

Republicans have claimed Biden received preferential treatment from his own Justice Department and that Trump faced unfair treatment from prosecutors. Democrats emphasized Biden’s cooperation with the investigation and drew sharp contrasts with the separate criminal case involving Trump, who was charged with refusing to return classified documents requested by the National Archives that he kept at his Florida property.

NBC News called the Democratic primary race Tuesday evening for Johnny Garcia, who serves as a spokesperson for the Bexar County sheriff in Texas, declaring him the winner in his bid for a congressional district nomination in the San Antonio area.

Garcia emerged victorious over his primary opponent Maureen Galindo in what was considered a competitive contest for the Democratic nomination.

A federal appeals court has granted additional time for a former Columbia University graduate student to challenge deportation proceedings initiated against him.

Mahmoud Khalil, who holds lawful permanent resident status in the United States, was taken into custody by immigration officials last year following his involvement in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia during spring 2024.

Government officials contended that Khalil’s continued presence in the United States posed a threat to the nation’s foreign policy objectives.

After spending several months in custody, Khalil was released when a federal judge in New Jersey determined that the government’s actions violated constitutional protections.

The case then moved to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that the New Jersey judge lacked jurisdiction to intervene and ordered the matter to proceed through immigration court channels first.

On Tuesday, however, the appeals court announced it would suspend its previous decision while Khalil pursues an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union representing Khalil, expressed appreciation for the court’s action.

“We look forward to asking the Supreme Court to make clear that the government cannot use the threat of detention and deportation to silence dissent,” he said in a statement.

A Supreme Court appeal is anticipated within the coming months, potentially by late summer.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the decision.

Following the court’s instructions, Khalil’s legal team has also presented arguments in immigration court proceedings, though those efforts have been unsuccessful thus far. A separate appeal from those hearings is currently awaiting review by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana.

The temporary suspension issued Tuesday by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals offers Khalil additional protection from potential re-arrest and removal while his other legal challenges remain active.

The court provided no explanation for its decision but noted that if no petition is submitted within the required timeframe, all parties must notify the court in writing.

The director of Puerto Rico’s primary economic development agency stepped down Tuesday, launching sharp criticism at the U.S. territory’s administration led by Jenniffer González and alleging government meddling in departmental operations.

Sebastián Negrón Reichard’s exit from the influential Department of Economic Development and Commerce occurs during a crucial period as Puerto Rico works to rebuild its economy and draw in affluent investors.

In his resignation statement, Negrón Reichard revealed that over 10 senior agency officials — including the chief of staff, general counsel and finance director — had also quit following what he described as government interference. He stated this included overturning two summary suspensions he had implemented after an inquiry revealed inappropriate meddling in the agency’s procurement processes.

The administration’s decisions “made it impossible to continue performing the duties of the position with the integrity and autonomy that the role requires and that every secretary owes to the public,” Negrón Reichard stated.

He further noted that these actions left “unprotected the staff who reported alleged irregularities in internal processes.” Negrón Reichard indicated he would refrain from additional comments while legal proceedings are pending.

When reporters asked Gov. González about the resignation, she voiced her disappointment and deflected questions regarding the alleged interference claims.

“I’m disappointed because I think he was a great agency secretary,” she stated. “We accomplished a lot and worked hard.”

Puerto Rico Senate President Thomás Rivera Schatz, who has recently clashed with González despite sharing the same pro-statehood party affiliation, described the resignation as “extremely regrettable.”

“I hope that those responsible for evaluating and understanding the scope of these circumstances will do so and take the corrective actions they need to take, which I’ve been warning them about for quite some time,” Rivera Schatz stated.

“If they don’t, well, I’ll be talking to these people, and if they bring evidence to me that shows something is wrong, I’ll go after them,” he continued.

A prominent evangelical leader who has been a strong supporter of President Donald Trump is already making bold predictions about the 2028 presidential election, claiming that a potential campaign pairing Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Ivanka Trump would be virtually unwinnable for Democratic opponents.

Dr. Mike Evans, who founded the Friends of Zion Museum, shared his thoughts with The Media Line on Tuesday morning, expressing confidence that such a political combination could successfully unite Trump’s core supporters with broader American voters.

“If this opportunity is seized, no one could run against these candidates,” Dr. Evans stated during the interview. “There’s no Democrat who could run and beat them. They’ll 100% win the White House back.”

Dr. Evans conducted this interview as international tensions were escalating, with Israeli forces reportedly advancing further into Lebanon territory, while President Trump simultaneously announced that the United States and Iran were approaching a potential agreement, even as American forces targeted Iranian positions in what Tehran described as a “grave violation” of the fragile ceasefire between the nations.

The evangelical leader praised both potential candidates, saying that Ivanka Trump “has the intelligence, she has the communication skills, she has it all, and she can cross over the base. Marco Rubio is the veteran with all the experience. So, I personally believe, if Marco Rubio and Ivanka run … no one can touch them with a 10-foot pole.”

According to Dr. Evans, Ivanka Trump could potentially reach the presidency within the next ten years, but serving as vice president initially would allow her to continue her father’s political legacy, with “the entire evangelical base, 100% of them, will support that on steroids.”

Shifting focus to international affairs, Dr. Evans discussed his belief that President Trump is currently pursuing a diplomatic agreement with Iran, though he emphasized this doesn’t mean the president would tolerate Iranian uranium enrichment, ballistic missile development, interference with the Strait of Hormuz shipping lanes, or continued funding of regional terrorist activities.

Dr. Evans characterized President Trump’s approach by saying he “plays the long game, so he’s looking at Iran, and he’s also looking at the clock. He knows he has two and a half years [left in office].”

The evangelical leader warned that President Trump refuses to allow anyone to “play him for the fool,” and if they attempt to do so, he will “go for your throat with revenge.” Dr. Evans suggested that if Tehran attempts to deceive or underestimate President Trump, “Iran can’t imagine in their worst nightmare what he will do to them. He will come back in a way they couldn’t possibly imagine.”

Dr. Evans has established himself as an influential evangelical figure who claims to have predicted major political developments, including the Abraham Accords years before their implementation during a speech at a conference hosted by a major publication. He also maintains that he anticipated President Trump’s political resurgence following his 2020 election defeat. During a 2024 speech in Jerusalem, Dr. Evans mentioned correspondence he had sent to President Trump during the period between his presidencies, urging him to use his Republican Party influence to advocate for military action against Kharg Island.

The evangelical leader has consistently positioned himself as one of President Trump’s most dedicated religious supporters and has been a vocal advocate for aggressive policies toward Iran, frequently discussing the conflict through both political and religious perspectives.

Dr. Evans expressed his belief that President Trump recognizes the significance of the upcoming midterm elections and the potential political limitations that could result from Republicans losing control in Washington.

“The Republicans need to stay in power, because then if the Democrats are in power, they can pass legislation to block the president from everything, including war in Iran,” Dr. Evans explained. “So we need to win these midterms. This is very important.”

Based on this political calculation, he anticipates that President Trump will likely delay any major escalation with Iran until after the midterm elections conclude.

However, Dr. Evans also argued that President Trump has already demonstrated his willingness to authorize significant military operations despite potential political consequences.

“I don’t think he’s capitulating over the midterms, because if he was basing his decisions on the midterm, he would have never attacked Iran,” Dr. Evans observed. He noted that President Trump is “dancing with the gorilla in the midterms, and the dilemma you have with this gorilla he’s dancing with is it’s affecting the US economy, affecting the prices of food, affecting the prices of oil, and he doesn’t want to lose the midterms, because we know what the Democrats will do to him in the next two years.”

He suggested that even if President Trump reaches an agreement with Iran, the country should not anticipate significant concessions from the United States. Instead, Dr. Evans argued, President Trump would provide Iran with an opportunity to demonstrate good faith, and if Tehran fails to meet expectations, “he’s not going to allow Iran to play games … He’s had the courage to do the right thing, and the damage he’s done to Iran is unbelievably significant, so I think he’s trying his best to balance both these complicated dilemmas, without compromising.”

Dr. Evans also predicted that President Trump will work to expand the Abraham Accords by bringing Saudi Arabia and other nations into the agreement before the midterm elections and their political ramifications take effect.

“This will be a game changer for the state of Israel, because it builds a firewall for Israel,” Dr. Evans stated.

President Trump facilitated the original Abraham Accords between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and later Morocco during the final period of his first presidency. Sudan also became a signatory to the accords, though its involvement has been effectively suspended due to the civil conflict that erupted in the country in April 2023. Kazakhstan became the most recent addition to the Abraham Accords when it officially joined on November 6, 2025.

Dr. Evans added that the “greatest military maneuver is sometimes not advancing but retrenching. It’s regrouping for the next battle. So, I’m not one bit worried about Israel.”

In May 2024, Dr. Evans installed prominent billboards throughout Jerusalem displaying an hourglass image overlaid on the Islamic Republic’s flag, accompanied by a prediction that the Iranian Ayatollah regime would fall by October 28, 2028. This date corresponds with the 7th of Aban in the Iranian calendar, which is observed as Cyrus the Great Day.

Many evangelical Christians draw comparisons between President Trump and Cyrus, who is referenced in the Book of Isaiah, as an example of how imperfect, non-believing leaders can still be instruments for advancing divine purposes.

“I still believe by 2028 it’ll happen,” Dr. Evans maintained. “It may not happen in the exact month I’m saying, but I believe it’s going to happen in the fall of that year.”

He explained that the collapse of the Iranian regime requires time and that “Trump knows what he’s doing … I believe he’s playing the long game, and I believe he knows exactly what he’s doing, and it’ll be just fine.”

Dr. Evans also discussed the anticipated Israeli election, which is expected to occur within the next five months. He advocated for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to seek reelection, stating that “he’s done an enormous amount of good for the state of Israel. No prime minister has done what he’s done.”

He dismissed Netanyahu’s opponents, including former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, as “characters.”

In 2021, Dr. Evans launched a harsh public criticism of then-Yamina leader Bennett for his role in removing Netanyahu from power. He distributed a letter to Bennett that gained widespread attention on social media, in which he accused the leader of having “betrayed the very principles that a generation gave their blood for and died for. You want to be in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood and leftists. God have mercy on your soul. You’re a pathetic, bitter little man so obsessed with murdering Netanyahu that you’re willing to damage the State of Israel for your worthless cause.”

Dr. Evans subsequently issued a personal apology for that letter.

He informed The Media Line that Christians will continue supporting Israel regardless of who serves as prime minister, but emphasized that “no person on the planet is more loved by evangelicals than Benjamin Netanyahu, not even Donald Trump … If you think of evangelicals globally all over the world, this is the bridge builder, this is the one who speaks our language.”

He suggested that alternative prime ministers would be unlikely to understand how to effectively engage with evangelicals to the same degree as Netanyahu and would probably lack meaningful relationships with this constituency.

“They’ll be at a tremendous disadvantage,” he concluded.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. health secretary, has internet users talking after posting footage of himself bare-handedly capturing two serpents, marking another chapter in his well-documented history of wildlife encounters.

The clip, which Kennedy posted to his personal social media Tuesday, shows him grasping the tails of two harmless black racer snakes while removing them from the outdoor space belonging to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz.

Kennedy, known for his outdoor pursuits, has frequently documented his interactions with various wild creatures through photos and videos over the years. His animal-related stories include a past admission of placing a deceased bear in New York’s Central Park as a joke.

The recent snake footage drew mixed reactions online, with viewers expressing everything from delight to disbelief to criticism. The video captures the serpents attempting to bite toward Kennedy’s hands while Oz inquires about the creatures. Kennedy’s spouse, actress Cheryl Hines, can be heard questioning “Why?” and urging him to release the animals.

Wildlife specialists confirmed the snake species poses minimal threat to people, even when biting occurs. However, they emphasized that handling wild animals creates stress for the creatures and advised against Kennedy’s tail-grabbing technique, which risks spinal damage to the snakes.

“That is not how I would handle the snakes, but I’m a trained professional,” said Bonnie Keller, a herpetologist and former board member of the Virginia Herpetological Society.

Sean McKnight, director of programs at the nonprofit Rattlesnake Conservancy, said he encourages people to minimize the duration that they’re handling any kind of wildlife, because they are “potentially stressing out the animals more than needed.”

Kennedy’s recent animal interactions include a photo from earlier this month showing him holding a bird he described as rescuing a starling at Dulles Airport in northern Virginia.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, he shared footage of himself using a net and small shovel to catch a rattlesnake in his California driveway. That video showed him carefully gripping the poisonous snake with his bare hands and displaying its fangs for the camera. McKnight noted he wouldn’t recommend anyone handle rattlesnakes in this manner, as there’s no safe way to restrain them manually.

Kennedy also drew criticism in 2024 when he revealed he had taken a bear carcass from a roadside and positioned it in Central Park as a prank in 2014. He mentioned at that time having collected roadkill throughout his life and once maintaining a “freezer full of it” at his residence. His campaign spokesperson Stefanie Spear, now a senior adviser at the nation’s health department, explained that roadkill served as food for Kennedy’s birds, as he has long practiced falconry.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorneys for the Southern Poverty Law Center told a federal judge Tuesday that criminal charges against their organization represent a politically motivated prosecution that should be thrown out, claiming the case stems from a coordinated effort to target President Donald Trump’s perceived adversaries.

The civil rights organization based in Alabama faces fraud and money laundering allegations filed in April, with prosecutors claiming the group deceived contributors by compensating informants within white supremacist and extremist organizations to gather intelligence about their operations.

Defense attorneys for the SPLC previously contended that law enforcement has been aware for years that the organization compensated informants to monitor hate group activities. They also pointed out that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made inaccurate statements during a press conference and media appearances when he claimed the organization withheld information gathered from informants from law enforcement agencies. Blanche later seemed to modify his position in a television appearance, acknowledging the SPLC had “selectively” provided information to law enforcement throughout the years.

In Tuesday’s dismissal motion, the organization’s legal team built upon these arguments, describing the prosecution as the “culmination of a top-down, retributive campaign” where Trump pressured the Justice Department “to go after those individuals and groups he deemed his political enemies, including the SPLC.”

The filing comes amid other controversial prosecutions that have sparked worries about the Justice Department being used as a tool against Trump’s critics. The motion attempts to connect the SPLC case with the human smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, which a judge dismissed Friday on similar vindictive prosecution grounds, calling it an “abuse of prosecuting power.”

The SPLC has explained that its discontinued informant compensation program was created to gather crucial intelligence about hate group activities to help protect potential targets. While an earlier federal probe into these practices ended without charges, the current motion portrays the Justice Department as pursuing the matter with renewed and hasty determination.

According to the defense filing, the department moved forward with the indictment without interviewing any current SPLC staff members and didn’t request documents from the organization until after informing defense counsel that criminal charges would be filed. When defense lawyers requested a meeting hoping to prevent the indictment, Justice Department officials told them the charging decision had already been finalized, the motion reveals.

“These procedural irregularities show that the charges against the SPLC were a foregone conclusion based on prosecutorial vindictiveness — driven by the White House and FBI leadership’s retribution campaign — rather than the result of a good faith examination of the evidence,” the motion states, describing the indictment as “premised on conclusory accusations but devoid of provable facts or a proper statement of the law.”

The motion also references whistleblower reports that alleged senior Justice Department officials rushed the indictment despite internal doubts about the case’s merit and evidence quality.

“For weeks, we have been arguing against these false allegations levied against the SPLC — an organization that for 55 years has stood as a beacon of hope fighting white supremacy and various forms of injustice to create a multiracial democracy where we can all live and thrive,” Bryan Fair, the interim president and CEO of SPLC, said in a statement. “The government can’t prosecute the SPLC as payback for its protected speech — it violates basic constitutional rights.”

Established in 1971 as a civil rights organization, the SPLC has spent decades using legal action to combat white supremacist organizations. The group also monitors the activities and locations of domestic extremists. However, this work has made it a frequent target among Republicans who view it as excessively liberal and partisan.

The organization gained renewed scrutiny last year following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, as the SPLC had featured a section about the organization Kirk established and headed, Turning Point USA, in a publication called “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024.”

FBI Director Kash Patel announced in October that the bureau would end its relationship with the SPLC, characterizing it as a “partisan smear machine” and accusing it of defaming “mainstream Americans” through its “hate map” that documents alleged anti-government and hate groups across the United States.

The defense motion argues that “animus” from high-ranking administration officials influenced the indictment.

Among the examples cited, the motion includes Trump’s own remarks calling the SPLC “a total scam run by the Democrats,” along with a media interview where Harmeet Dhillon, the Justice Department’s top civil rights official, described the indictment as “personal” to her because she had “a lot of journalist friends … and groups that I’ve represented who have been targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

WASHINGTON — Construction workers are busy installing a temporary but elaborate project on the White House grounds that’s unlike anything seen before at the presidential residence.

An eight-sided fighting arena is being assembled on the South Lawn to accommodate a UFC event scheduled for next month, serving as part of the country’s 250th anniversary celebration and President Donald Trump’s 80th birthday.

Digital mockups show the planned appearance of the wire-mesh-enclosed combat area before the June 14 event. The fighting space will be encircled by a patriotic red, white and blue platform beneath a massive archway decorated with star and stripe designs and two jumbo screens broadcasting the action in real time.

The arena and platform will be encircled by thousands of temporary bleachers, including front-row areas designated for a complete marching band that will provide loud musical accompaniment to the entire spectacle.

This construction represents one element of multiple events planned to commemorate the semiquincentennial of when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. Additional scheduled activities include an IndyCar race route that will travel past the White House and the Great American State Fair happening on the National Mall.

Trump has described the completed UFC installation as featuring “a 5,000-seat arena right outside the front door of the White House.” Extra jumbo screens showing the matches will be positioned in a park at the nearby Ellipse, with the UFC planning to distribute up to 85,000 complimentary tickets for viewers at both venues.

“I have never seen anybody want anything so much as people want those tickets,” Trump said recently regarding attendance demand for the UFC event, adding, “That’s gonna be something.”

Online fans have criticized the fight lineup as disappointing, with only two title matches scheduled. Brazil’s Alex Pereira will face France’s Ciryl Gane for the interim UFC heavyweight title. Then Spanish-Georgian lightweight champion Ilia Topuria takes on interim champ Justin Gaethje, one of just two Americans who currently hold even a share of the UFC’s 11 championship belts.

The eight-sided ring and accompanying infrastructure represent the newest addition to the White House construction surge Trump is overseeing.

The president’s additional efforts to create his legacy include removing portions of the Rose Garden to create patio areas similar to his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida, installing partisan plaques along the colonnade wall for a Presidential Walk of Fame, remodeling the bathroom connected to the Lincoln Bedroom and updating the Palm Room, adding new flag poles to the north and south lawns and completely demolishing the East Wing for an expansive ballroom.

The president also plans to repaint the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House and construct a 250-foot arch at the nearby Lincoln Memorial — the same location where weigh-ins for the upcoming UFC event are scheduled to occur, according to event organizers.

WASHINGTON/MEXICO CITY – The Trump administration’s chief trade official announced Tuesday that the United States intends to impose tariffs on its North American free trade partners while highlighting major trade disputes with Canada.

Speaking at a forum, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated that tariff implementation will continue as long as the country faces substantial trade deficits.

“We’re going to have tariffs as long as we have a giant trade deficit,” Greer explained during his remarks. “The reality is we’ve spent the past year and a half going to countries telling them we have to have some level of tariff.”

A Maine Democratic Senate candidate turned a pulled advertisement into a campaign opportunity over Memorial Day weekend, using the controversy to advance his message against private equity influence.

Graham Platner, seeking to challenge longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins, launched a commercial during Red Sox game coverage that criticized the team’s ownership for damaging the beloved franchise. The network removed the advertisement partway through the broadcast, giving Platner additional ammunition for his populist campaign themes.

“We ran an ad during last night’s Red Sox game exposing how private equity is making everything in our lives worse, and it got pulled midway through the game by a station owned by Red Sox ownership,” Platner stated on Saturday. “And of course, the Red Sox blew a 4-0 lead to lose the game.”

New England Sports Network, which removed the advertisement, is primarily owned by Fenway Sports Group – the same conglomerate that controls the Red Sox and Liverpool soccer club.

“NESN removes advertisements when credible concerns arise regarding the use of intellectual property,” the network explained in a statement. “The advertisement in question was removed because the creative included unauthorized use of third-party intellectual property and did not comply with NESN’s advertising standards.”

Network officials declined to specify which elements of the commercial violated their policies. The Red Sox organization also remained silent when asked for comment.

Collins’ campaign dismissed Platner’s Red Sox criticism as a distraction from “questions about his judgment and character.” The candidate has faced scrutiny over a tattoo linked to Nazi symbolism that he later covered up, plus controversial social media posts about women, police, veterans and rural residents. Platner has apologized for these issues and claimed ignorance about the tattoo’s significance when he got it following a drinking session.

The 15-second commercial featured the oyster farmer pledging to “reverse the private equity curse” if elected, while lamenting the absence of Mookie Betts – referencing fan anger over FSG’s 2020 trade of the homegrown star to the Los Angeles Dodgers. The phrase echoes “reverse the curse,” a popular fan rallying cry from the 1990s and 2000s referencing the team’s championship drought before 2004.

The advertisement also targeted private equity for “buying up our homes, our sports and our lives” while citing a March 2021 Axios report about RedBird Capital Partners acquiring an 11% stake in FSG.

During that period, FSG also brought on Los Angeles Lakers star LeBron James as an investor, with James expressing interest in eventual NBA team ownership.

FSG subsequently acquired the NHL’s Pittsburgh Penguins in late 2021, winners of five Stanley Cup championships. The group agreed to sell the Penguins to Chicago-based Hoffmann Family of Cos. for approximately $1.7 billion in 2025, with the sale receiving approval this year.

John Henry, FSG’s founder and principal owner, donated hundreds of thousands of dollars primarily to Democratic candidates during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Campaign records show no political contributions from him after 2004.

The Red Sox currently occupy last place in their division with a 22-30 record, sliding into mediocrity since the RedBird Capital partnership began. Frustrated fans have chanted “sell the team” during some home games this season in Boston.

Before the RedBird Capital arrangement, the franchise enjoyed considerable success, capturing World Series titles in 2004, 2007, 2013 and 2018. Since then, the team has struggled, reaching the American League Championship Series just once.

Federal civil rights officials have taken legal action against the University of California Los Angeles, claiming the school allowed a dangerous atmosphere for Jewish and Israeli students to persist on campus.

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice filed the federal lawsuit on Tuesday, charging that UCLA violated Title VI, the federal statute that bars discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal funding. Officials accused the university of showing “deliberate indifference to this pervasive on-campus antisemitism.”

The legal complaint focuses on an unauthorized encampment established on UCLA’s campus during April 2024. Federal prosecutors characterized this encampment as unlawful and claim that Jewish students faced physical attacks during this period.

“Universities have an obligation to maintain safe and inclusive campuses for all students,” stated Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California.

“Universities that violate our nation’s civil rights laws by repeatedly failing to shield Jewish students from antisemitism will be held accountable.”

UCLA officials had not provided a response when contacted for comment about the lawsuit.

The Justice Department revealed this legal action on the same day that a federal appeals court partially supported an injunction requiring the restoration of University of California grants that the Trump administration had cancelled last year due to concerns about diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

This lawsuit represents another enforcement action by the Trump administration targeting what officials characterize as antisemitism at American universities following the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas against Israel.

The 2023 assault killed more than 1,200 people and sparked the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. The war has claimed over 75,000 lives to date.

Student activists across the United States and Europe organized protests following the outbreak of war, demanding an end to hostilities through a ceasefire. Some demonstrations involved students taking over university buildings.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court delivered a victory Tuesday to President Donald Trump’s administration in a legal battle concerning speech limitations placed on immigration judges, a case that highlighted broader questions about federal worker rights.

The justices reversed a previous court decision that had permitted the lawsuit to move forward, while simultaneously raising concerns about whether the federal employee grievance process remains effective following the Republican president’s removal of several key officials from the system.

Despite holding the title of judges, these immigration officials are classified as federal employees who sought to challenge through the courts a policy that limited their ability to speak publicly. This restriction began during Trump’s initial presidency and was maintained under President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration. The immigration judges contended this represented a violation of free speech rights that warranted federal court intervention.

The Trump administration took the opposite position, maintaining that these officials should pursue their grievances through the established federal employee complaint process managed by the Merit Systems Protection Board.

While the court’s decision focused on procedural matters, Justice Clarence Thomas, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s agreement, issued criticism directed at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for engaging with “political controversies of the day.”

This Tuesday ruling arrives as the court considers a separate case regarding Trump’s authority to dismiss leaders of independent agencies. The resolution is anticipated to influence dismissal powers concerning Merit Systems Protection Board members as well.

The immigration judges initially filed their lawsuit in 2020, and the Supreme Court had previously provided them temporary support through an emergency ruling in December.

Republican lawmakers in South Carolina’s state Senate delivered an unexpected setback to President Donald Trump on Tuesday, voting down a proposed congressional redistricting plan that would have targeted Democratic U.S. Representative James Clyburn’s district.

The rejection of the new map represents an uncommon instance of members of Trump’s own party breaking ranks with the president’s agenda. The proposed redistricting effort had been designed to create a more competitive landscape in Clyburn’s congressional seat.

WASHINGTON — Federal workers across the country could soon be required to sign non-disclosure agreements under a new proposal from the Trump administration aimed at preventing unauthorized information from reaching the press.

The Office of Personnel Management published a request for public feedback Tuesday in the Federal Register regarding a draft agreement that would apply to both current federal workers and new hires.

According to the notice, the agreement would serve to “document Federal employees’ acknowledgment of, and agreement to comply with, current legal obligations to safeguard non-public, confidential, or proprietary information, created or obtained through their official duties, while expressly preserving the right to make disclosures authorized by law.”

Officials cited multiple recent cases where internal government communications about policy decisions and rule development were shared without permission. The agency specifically mentioned unauthorized disclosures by workers at the FBI and Department of Homeland Security regarding planned immigration operations.

The request highlighted one incident where the New York Times and Washington Post obtained advance knowledge of a U.S. operation in Venezuela last January and chose to postpone “publishing what they knew to avoid endangering U.S. troops.”

Neither newspaper responded immediately to requests for comment.

Stopping unauthorized disclosures that the administration considers damaging to its communications strategy has become a key focus across government agencies since President Donald Trump’s return to office. As part of these efforts, federal investigators in January confiscated electronic equipment belonging to a Washington Post journalist, drawing criticism from news organizations and press freedom advocates.

Another significant confrontation happened last year when numerous reporters surrendered their Pentagon press credentials rather than accept new restrictions from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that could result in their removal for attempting to report on any information — whether classified or not — that Hegseth had not personally authorized for publication.

The American Federation of Government Employees has not yet provided a response to the proposal.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Tuesday marked the start of early in-person voting for South Carolina’s primary elections, while state senators deliberated on potentially canceling congressional elections to implement new district boundaries crafted to assist Republicans in defeating an established Democratic representative.

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the Democratic congressman Republicans aim to unseat through redistricting, was among the initial voters casting early ballots in Orangeburg. The veteran lawmaker declared his intention to seek reelection despite potential changes to his district boundaries.

“I’m OK if it’s Trump plus 20,” Clyburn stated when discussing the possible Republican edge in a redrawn district. “I would be running where I live.”

This South Carolina political maneuvering represents part of a broader Republican initiative — driven by President Donald Trump — to redraw electoral boundaries favoring the GOP as they attempt to maintain their narrow House majority during midterm elections. Republicans have moved swiftly to capitalize on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that reduced minority protections under federal Voting Rights Act provisions.

However, Republicans encountered a significant obstacle Tuesday in Alabama, where a three-judge federal panel issued a preliminary injunction preventing the state from implementing a Republican-designed congressional map that could secure the GOP an additional seat. The court determined the Republican proposal “intentionally discriminated based on race” by establishing only one Black-majority district and mandated continued use of a court-imposed map featuring two districts with substantial Black populations.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, a Republican, pledged a swift appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and predicted ultimate success.

Democrats, who have experienced their own losses in the nationwide redistricting conflict, celebrated the Alabama development.

The “fight for justice is far from over in states across the country where politicians are enacting gerrymanders on top of gerrymanders to erase equal representation for communities of color,” said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, a nonprofit affiliate of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

Electoral districts are customarily redrawn following a census at each decade’s beginning. However, Trump has encouraged Republican-controlled states to redistrict before November elections to counter political challenges, which typically cause the president’s party to lose congressional seats during midterms.

Following Trump’s initial push for Texas to redraw its electoral districts last summer, Republicans have also implemented new House districts in Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Tennessee. Simultaneously, California voters approved new Democratic-drawn districts, and a court imposed a favorable map for Democrats in Utah. Democrats faced disappointment in Virginia, where the state Supreme Court invalidated a voter-approved redistricting plan that might have helped Democrats secure additional seats.

Redistricting conversations continue in Louisiana after an April high court decision that overturned a majority-Black congressional district as an illegal partisan gerrymander. The Louisiana House may vote this week on a new map that could eliminate a seat held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Cleo Fields and enhance Republicans’ prospects of winning six of the state’s seven seats.

The Congressional Black Caucus on Tuesday urged major corporations throughout the U.S., including those that previously supported voting rights and racial justice, to oppose redistricting efforts by Republican-led states seeking to eliminate majority-Black U.S. House districts. This follows the caucus’s previous call for Black athletes to boycott public universities in states gerrymandering congressional maps to eliminate districts held by Black lawmakers.

Over 26,000 ballots were cast in South Carolina by midday Tuesday during the first day of early voting for the June 9 primary after Democrats urged opponents of the proposed new map to vote in large numbers. In 2022, approximately 125,000 early votes were cast during the entire two-week period.

The Republican-controlled House has already approved a proposal that would restructure Clyburn’s district, invalidate current congressional primary results and conduct new U.S. House primaries in August.

Trump has advocated for the proposal, placing at least two phone calls to Republican state Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey and also calling into a private Republican senators’ meeting earlier this month. He has also continued applying pressure through social media.

Discussion has stalled in the Senate, where Democrats strongly oppose the plan and some GOP legislators worry that aggressive redistricting might backfire by making certain Republican-held seats vulnerable to losses due to adding Democratic voters.

Clyburn observed that when state lawmakers previously redrew congressional districts following the 2020 census, they spent months conducting statewide meetings to collect public input. Although that map created a 6-1 seat advantage for Republicans over Democrats, the process was systematic and equitable, he explained.

“When the map was challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court said, yes, this is constitutional,” Clyburn said. But now, “this White House says, to hell with the process, to hell with the Constitution, just do what we want done.”

PORTLAND, Maine — A ballot measure in Maine designed to restrict transgender students’ participation in athletics has been struck from the November ballot due to insufficient valid signatures, state officials announced Tuesday.

The initiative, backed by the parents’ organization Protect Girls Sports in Maine, sought to have voters decide whether public schools should limit bathroom and sports access based on the gender listed on a student’s birth certificate.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who is running for governor as a Democrat, announced Tuesday that her office discovered more than 12,000 signatures on the referendum petition were invalid. This finding left the campaign several hundred signatures below the necessary 67,682 needed to qualify for the ballot, Bellows explained.

The ruling represents a blow to the broader national effort to restrict or prohibit transgender student participation in athletics. Maine became a focal point for this debate last year amid a public dispute between Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, who is serving her final year due to term limits, and President Donald Trump.

“We take the integrity of the petitions just as seriously as we take the security of voting. It’s really important that anyone seeking to place a initiative on the ballot follow the law,” Bellows said.

The petition organizers have a 10-day window to challenge Bellows’ ruling. Representatives from Protect Girls Sports in Maine did not respond immediately to requests for comment Tuesday, though they indicated last week they would continue efforts to get the measure on the ballot. The organization retains the option to pursue placing the initiative on a future ballot, Bellows noted.

Last week, the secretary of state’s office issued a preliminary recommendation stating the petition “does not meet the constitution threshold” for valid signatures. Leyland Streiff, the principal officer of Protect Girls Sports in Maine, responded with a statement saying the group was “continuing our defense of the Protect Girls Sports ballot measure.”

Currently, at least 19 states have enacted legislation prohibiting transgender girls and women from accessing girls’ and women’s restrooms in public schools, with some extending to other government buildings, private schools, or public spaces. A court has temporarily suspended enforcement of one such law in Montana.

Additionally, at least 30 states have implemented laws or policies aimed at preventing transgender girls and women from participating in girls’ and women’s athletics. Legal challenges have blocked some of these measures from taking effect.

None of these bathroom or sports restrictions originated through voter initiatives. Two other Democratic-led states, Colorado and Washington, have sports-related measures appearing on their November ballots.

These limitations on both issues have been enacted within the last five years and have received support from Trump. Following his return to office last year, he ended agreements with school districts designed to protect transgender students and issued an executive order restricting transgender athlete participation in sports.

Those opposing the Maine ballot question expressed support for Bellows’ decision Tuesday. The petition organizers “failed to follow the rules,” stated David Farmer, campaign manager for the Campaign for Free and Fair Schools, which worked against the proposed question.

WASHINGTON — Federal officials announced Tuesday they will accept an additional 10,000 white South Africans as refugees this year, expanding the nation’s historically limited annual ceiling while continuing to deny entry to people from other nations seeking refuge.

The administration halted the refugee program on its first day and has since transformed it into a pathway specifically for Afrikaners — white South Africans primarily descended from Dutch colonists — to enter the United States. Advocacy organizations argue that directing a program with decades of history toward a single demographic has stranded individuals worldwide who are escaping violence and conflict with limited alternatives.

Officials claim Afrikaners face persecution in their homeland, an allegation that South Africa’s government rejects.

In Tuesday’s Federal Register announcement, President Donald Trump cited “an unforeseen emergency refugee situation” as justification for expanding the refugee ceiling. He criticized South Africa’s government for “recent increases in the incitement of racially motivated violence” without providing specific details.

“I hereby determine that the admission to the United States of Afrikaners from South Africa in response to this emergency is justified by the grave humanitarian concerns and is otherwise in the national interest,” Trump stated in the announcement.

Officials previously indicated they would accept up to 7,500 individuals, primarily Afrikaners, during the fiscal year running from October 2025 through September 2026. However, in a recent congressional notification about the increase, the administration cited “unforeseen developments in South Africa created an emergency refugee situation.” The revision increases the ceiling to 17,500.

The State Department has already processed more than 6,000 individuals through the refugee program since the fiscal year began in October, according to government statistics. All but three of those individuals came from South Africa, with the remaining three originating from Afghanistan.

Presidential authority determines annual refugee admission limits, and traditionally, these numbers have been distributed across different global regions while considering conflicts or wars that create humanitarian crises worldwide.

The refugee program, overseen by the State Department and Department of Homeland Security, operates separately from asylum procedures. Refugee applicants must reside outside the United States and complete screening and verification processes before admission, while asylum seekers are already present on American territory.

During his previous term, the administration dramatically reduced annual refugee admissions. The subsequent administration rebuilt the system, establishing a goal of accepting 125,000 refugees in its final year.

Organizations that have spent decades assisting refugee resettlement in America have filed lawsuits seeking admission for individuals who were undergoing the refugee application process but are now stranded.

“For nearly half a century, the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program embodied a simple but powerful, bipartisan idea: that the United States would offer safety to the world’s most vulnerable refugees,” said Beth Oppenheim, President & CEO of HIAS, in a statement. “This administration is now dismantling that legacy in plain sight.”

Texas voters head to the polls Tuesday to decide a Republican U.S. Senate primary runoff between longtime incumbent Senator John Cornyn and state Attorney General Ken Paxton, in a costly and prolonged campaign that has drawn President Donald Trump into the fray.

Trump’s backing of Paxton, whom he described as ‘a true MAGA Warrior,’ arrived in the final stretch of the contest and represents another attempt by the president to target Republican officials he considers inadequately supportive.

The Republican victor will face off against Democratic state Representative James Talarico in the November general election.

The March 3 primary results showed no distinct regional patterns. Close vote tallies in Houston, Dallas and neighboring communities highlight how the competition crosses through, rather than cleanly dividing, Texas’ metropolitan and suburban territories.

Cornyn — who Paxton criticized as overly connected to Washington Republicans and insufficiently devoted to Trump — captured victories in the state’s most populous counties, including metropolitan areas around Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin and Houston. However, Paxton stayed within striking distance, losing by approximately 1,900 votes in Harris County, which includes Houston, and 4,100 votes in Bexar County, which contains San Antonio. Tuesday’s runoff may hinge on which candidate establishes stronger regional support, especially around Houston, where Representative Wesley Hunt, who placed third, exceeded his statewide performance.

Dallas-area contractor Raymond Schramm stated Tuesday that healthcare concerns him, particularly Republican-led reductions in Affordable Care Act subsidies, and he questions how the conflict with Iran has been handled.

While he supported President Donald Trump, he believes the Senate requires someone who will “have a little bit of a difference.” He favors Talarico for his apparent kindness.

“I like him. He’s a nice guy. He speaks well,” he said. “I don’t believe in the party system.”

“My situation is a little different than Massie’s or Cassidy’s,” said Cornyn, referring to two other Republican incumbents who criticized Trump more openly and recently lost their primaries amid pressure from the president and his endorsed candidates.

Regarding his circumstances, Cornyn explained on Fox News Radio’s The Brian Kilmeade Show that Trump is “frustrated I think with the Senate as a whole.”

There are “grifters,” the senator added, who are “claiming I am opposed to the president’s agenda and I think that’s caused some confusion with the president himself, but I’ve been supportive.”

Legal assistant Calise Perry describes herself as “100%” Republican and cast her ballot Tuesday for challenger Ken Paxton over incumbent Cornyn in Texas’ GOP runoff.

The 65-year-old Garland resident said Paxton, the Texas attorney general, fights hard, “and that’s what we need right now.” The runoff occurred one week after President Donald Trump endorsed Paxton.

“Cornyn’s been in way too long, and it’s time for him to retire,” she said. “He’s been in office a long time and really hasn’t done much, as far as I can see.”

WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court turned away Florida’s ambitious legal challenge on Tuesday, declining to hear the state’s lawsuit against California and Washington over their policies of granting commercial driving permits to truckers who cannot speak English and lack legal authorization to remain in the country.

The legal dispute originated from a deadly collision in Florida last year that claimed three lives. The motorist responsible, Harjinder Singh, stands accused of executing an unlawful U-turn that triggered the fatal accident. Singh, an Indian national, possessed a current commercial driving permit issued by California and had previously obtained similar authorization from Washington state.

Florida’s Republican leadership has charged the Democrat-controlled Western states with deliberately flouting federal immigration statutes and petitioned the justices to declare that states cannot lawfully grant CDLs to individuals who lack citizenship or permanent legal residency status.

While the nation’s top court generally reviews decisions from lower tribunals, it occasionally considers what legal experts call original cases where states directly challenge one another before the highest judicial authority.

Two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, registered their disagreement with Tuesday’s decision, following their customary practice of objecting when the court declines to hear original state-versus-state disputes, maintaining that the court must accept jurisdiction over such matters.

In related developments, a federal appellate court has halted a Trump administration initiative that sought to establish new limitations significantly restricting immigrant eligibility for commercial driving credentials needed to operate large trucks or buses.

A federal court issued a temporary order on Tuesday halting Alabama’s attempt to implement new congressional district boundaries that would potentially benefit Republican candidates in November’s midterm elections.

The three-judge panel overseeing the state’s ongoing redistricting litigation granted a preliminary injunction stopping Alabama from adopting the revised map. The decision mandates that the state maintain the existing court-mandated districts used in the 2024 congressional elections.

Legal representatives for Black voters in the redistricting lawsuit had requested the preliminary injunction, contending that the same judicial panel determined in 2023 that Alabama’s proposed map deliberately discriminated against Black voters. The attorneys also maintained that Alabama was generating confusion by attempting to alter district boundaries during an active election cycle.

The decision represents a setback for state Republicans seeking to implement a map for November’s midterm contests that would provide the GOP an opportunity to regain the seat currently occupied by Democratic U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures. The state retains the option to challenge the decision before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This court decision marks the most recent chapter in the complex legal and political developments following a U.S. Supreme Court decision that eliminated a Black-majority district in Louisiana and diminished the federal Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court’s ruling has prompted Republicans across multiple Southern states, including Alabama, to pursue efforts to reconfigure voting districts containing substantial minority populations that have historically elected Democrats.

The redistricting activities represent part of a wider effort by President Donald Trump to maintain Republicans’ narrow House majority in November’s elections.

Additional states have also contemplated modifications to their primary election schedules to accommodate congressional redistricting following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act decision. Louisiana rescheduled its congressional primaries from May 16 to later in the summer, with Republican Gov. Jeff Landry making the change to allow state legislators time to evaluate a new U.S. House map eliminating a majority-Black district.

In South Carolina, the Republican-controlled legislature examined a proposal to invalidate votes from its June 9 congressional primary and conduct a new August primary using modified districts that could enhance Republicans’ prospects of securing an additional seat.

Tennessee also acted swiftly to establish new U.S. House districts following the Supreme Court’s decision by dividing a Black-majority district centered in Memphis that had elected the state’s sole Democratic representative. The revised map provides Republicans the possibility of capturing all nine state seats. Tennessee temporarily reopened its candidate qualification period for August congressional primaries as part of the plan, permitting new candidates to join races while allowing existing candidates to change districts or withdraw.

Following Trump’s initial call for Texas to redraw its U.S. House districts last summer, approximately six Republican-controlled states have adopted new voting districts, although some continue to face legal challenges. Democrats responded with new districts in California and anticipate gaining a seat through new court-imposed districts in Utah.

On the 88th day of conflict with Iran, President Donald Trump maintains that a peaceful resolution is within reach, though Iran criticized recent U.S. military actions as demonstrating “bad faith and unreliability” while diplomatic talks persist. State media from Lebanon reported that an Israeli attack resulted in 12 additional fatalities. Iran continues to insist that any agreement must encompass cessation of fighting in both Lebanon and Gaza.

The president has a medical examination scheduled in Washington, while political battles over redistricting persist. The Congressional Black Caucus is pushing for corporate involvement to protect voting rights, marking an end to their collective withdrawal during Trump’s second term. In Texas, Ken Paxton, who has Trump’s endorsement despite scandal allegations, is expected to defeat Sen. John Cornyn in Tuesday’s Republican primary runoff.

Following the Memorial Day break, U.S. crude oil prices dropped 3.8% to $92.99 per barrel on Tuesday, while American stock markets gained ground, catching up with international markets that had already climbed after Trump described Iran negotiations as “proceeding nicely.”

The S&P 500, Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nasdaq composite all advanced Tuesday, approaching record highs despite continued Middle East fighting and U.S. military acknowledgment of strikes against Iranian missile facilities and mine-laying vessels on Monday. Financial markets have previously surged on expectations of war’s end, only to watch the conflict continue while driving up global inflation.

The Congressional Black Caucus is requesting that major American corporations stand against Republican redistricting initiatives aimed at eliminating House districts with Black majorities.

A Tuesday letter to over 250 companies calls for condemnation of “coordinated efforts to silence Black voices at the ballot box.” Some companies had previously joined a 2021 message to Congress supporting the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, Democratic legislation to renew and modernize the Voting Rights Act.

The Business for Voting Rights coalition from 2021 featured Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Tesla, Salesforce, Target, PayPal, Intel and Starbucks.

“Corporations that have profited from Black consumers, relied on Black workers, and amassed wealth in part from Black communities cannot look away while Black political power is dismantled in plain sight,” caucus chair Rep. Yvette Clarke stated during an interview.

The White House announced Trump would greet service members and hospital personnel before undergoing extensive medical evaluation by a physician team.

This marks the Republican president’s fourth public medical examination since returning to office in January 2025, as the nearly 80-year-old leader seeks to demonstrate vitality ahead of November elections that will measure his influence with voters.

Officials describe the visit as routine annual preventive medical and dental care. Trump’s previous Walter Reed visits occurred in October and April 2025.

Last July, the White House revealed Trump had been diagnosed with an age-related condition causing blood accumulation in veins, explaining ankle swelling visible in photographs.

Officials have also attributed hand bruising seen in images to frequent handshaking.

No legal mandate exists for such disclosures, and transparency levels differ among administrations.

For decades, presidents have published medical findings to demonstrate their fitness for the demanding position.

However, presidential approval is required for all releases, creating uncertainty about withheld information.

Medical experts have previously questioned Trump’s health reports for lacking detail and containing questionable data.

The White House will need several hours before sharing Tuesday’s examination results.

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration has unveiled a plan that would require federal employees to sign non-disclosure agreements designed to prevent unauthorized information sharing with news outlets, according to an official government announcement released Tuesday.

The Office of Personnel Management, which serves as the federal government’s human resources department, revealed its intention to develop standardized non-disclosure forms that individual agencies could implement for both current staff members and new hires. The agency is currently soliciting public comments on the proposal and noted that each federal department would decide independently whether to adopt the agreements.

Should the plan move forward, these agreements would provide clearer guidelines to government workers about potential employment termination if they release information to reporters without proper authorization from their supervisors.

Reuters attempted to contact the Office of Personnel Management for additional details but did not receive an immediate response.

The nation’s highest court delivered a victory to President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday in a legal battle over restrictions limiting public statements by federal immigration judges.

In an unsigned decision, the justices overturned a lower court ruling and sent the matter back for additional proceedings. The court’s decision did not examine whether the speech limitations, which were put in place during Trump’s previous presidency, violate constitutional protections.

The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to intervene after a lower court required findings about whether Trump’s dismissals of agency leaders handling federal employee grievances had compromised the independence from executive branch influence that Congress intended. The lower court indicated such a determination could allow the immigration judges to pursue their case in court.

An organization representing the immigration judges had also challenged the lower court’s ruling that their speech restriction case should go before the agencies – provided they remain operational – rather than through the court system. The Supreme Court rejected that challenge on Tuesday.

Under the disputed rule, immigration judges must obtain advance permission for any “official” public speaking. These events include situations where a judge “is invited to participate in an event because of their official position, is expected to discuss agency policies, programs or a subject matter that directly relates to their official duties or otherwise appear on behalf of the agency,” court documents show.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which employs approximately 750 immigration judges and manages the country’s immigration court system, implemented this rule during Trump’s first presidency. Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration reviewed but kept the policy in place, and Trump’s current administration has continued it.

The National Association of Immigration Judges filed suit in 2020 seeking to halt the policy, claiming it breached First Amendment free speech protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

A federal judge in Virginia dismissed the court challenge in 2023, determining that a 1978 law known as the Civil Service Reform Act required the complaint to go through independent federal agencies that handle federal worker grievances instead of the courts. This law directs certain federal employee complaints to the Office of Special Counsel, which determines whether to present the case to the Merit Systems Protection Board for resolution.

However, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in Richmond ruled in June 2025 that Trump’s removal of these agency heads created significant concerns about whether immigration judges could receive fair treatment from the agencies. The appeals court directed the lower court to investigate this issue, leading to the Trump administration’s Supreme Court appeal.

On Tuesday, the justices criticized the 4th Circuit for making its decision based on reasoning that neither side in the case had presented.

Trump has dismissed many independent agency leaders despite laws designed to protect these officials from arbitrary removal.

In a related case, the Supreme Court is anticipated to decide by late June whether the Trump administration’s position that such removal protections unconstitutionally limit presidential authority is correct.

The immigration judges’ association contended in its appeal that challenges to speech restrictions should be permitted in court regardless of whether federal agencies face operational difficulties.

Since Trump returned to office, the Supreme Court has supported his administration in multiple immigration-related emergency rulings, including permitting deportations to countries other than migrants’ home nations and allowing the cancellation of temporary legal status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants.

The court is also expected to rule by the end of June on Trump’s order to limit birthright citizenship in the United States and the administration’s effort to end temporary legal protections for more than 350,000 Haitians and approximately 6,100 Syrians residing in the United States.

WASHINGTON – A Reuters analysis reveals that President Donald Trump has made false assertions about the 2020 election being stolen from him no fewer than 107 times during the past six months, maintaining this grievance as a central focus while facing new political challenges from international conflicts and approaching midterm elections.

The analysis of Trump’s public appearances, interviews and social media activity shows he addresses this topic almost daily, often in concentrated bursts. During one April Saturday, while a delicate ceasefire with Iran was in place, Trump made allegations about the 2020 election – which he lost to his predecessor Joe Biden – seven times on his Truth Social platform.

Trump has brought up these assertions during no fewer than six meetings with international leaders, two professional sports team celebrations, and White House ceremonies for Hanukkah and Christmas. During impromptu comments at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this past January, he stated “people will soon be prosecuted for what they did.”

He brought up his assertions of election manipulation at a White House gathering for lawmakers last week and once more when speaking with reporters before getting on Air Force One.

“If we had Jesus Christ come down and count the votes, I would have won California,” Trump stated about the consistently Democratic state where he lost by 29 percentage points in 2020 and more than 20 percentage points in 2024. “But it’s a rigged vote.”

Staff members and interviewers frequently dismiss his remarks, while critics characterize them as complaints from someone who cannot accept defeat.

However, Trump’s persistent emphasis on 2020 indicates a forward-thinking approach designed to support new voting limitations, strengthen party allegiance and motivate supporters before November elections that will decide Congressional control, according to two White House officials and two people familiar with the situation who received anonymity to speak openly.

By portraying the 2020 election as invalid, he is also preparing to contest Republican defeats and weaken Democrats should they regain power, several election experts stated.

“He’s not looking back; this is about the midterms,” said Alexandra Chandler, an election expert at the nonpartisan advocacy organization, Protect Democracy. “He’s trying to create a fog of disinformation with this. So then if he dials it up further with federal interference, the public will not react as surprised.”

This past April, despite having initiated a nationwide redistricting battle months before, Trump criticized Virginia’s election results for redrawing U.S. congressional district maps as “rigged,” without offering evidence of fraud.

“President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement.

REPUBLICAN VOTERS SYMPATHETIC TO FALSE CLAIMS

Trump’s messaging has found support among Republican voters. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from April showed that 63% of Republican voters accept Trump’s false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen, a percentage that has stayed mostly consistent in recent years.

An even larger portion of Republicans – 82% – expressed agreement that significant numbers of fraudulent ballots are submitted by non-citizens in U.S. elections.

In contrast, just 9% of Democrats and 21% of independents stated they believed Trump lost in 2020 because of misconduct, and 18% of Democrats and 38% of independents expressed worries about non-citizens submitting fraudulent ballots.

Numerous courts, state officials and previous investigations found no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

Despite this, Trump appointed an election-security czar last year to reinvestigate his 2020 defeat. Those new investigations have produced no fresh evidence, Reuters reported in April. Administration officials also attempted last year to prohibit voting machines used in more than half of U.S. states while considering how the federal government could assume control over state-managed elections, Reuters reported last week.

Trump’s 2020 messaging became more intense in December after he attempted to pardon Tina Peters, a Colorado county clerk who was convicted by the state of interfering with voting machines following that election. He repeated the accusations while urging congressional Republicans to approve his Save America Act, which would mandate proof of citizenship for voting, and again while increasing criticism of mail-in voting.

While the U.S. Senate has not moved forward with Trump’s national voting modifications, many states have enacted similar proof-of-citizenship requirements and more stringent identification rules. Trump has also issued executive orders attempting to restrict mail-in voting, but those measures are currently being contested in court by Democrats.

SOME REPUBLICANS PUSH BACK

Meanwhile, Trump has employed his 2020 assertions to shift responsibility for difficult global conflicts and domestic policy disagreements.

In December, as the Ukraine war continued despite Trump’s 2024 campaign promise to end it within a day, the U.S. president informed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that the “rigged” U.S. election enabled Russia’s 2022 invasion. In February, he told families who had lost relatives in immigration-related crimes that they would be “home with your son, daughter” if the election had not been “rigged.”

The 2020 election has also become a test of allegiance for many of Trump’s nominees for important federal positions, including judicial candidates, who have declined under oath to confirm to Democratic senators that Biden won. Instead, they state only that Congress certified the election in his favor.

However, some Republicans are resisting.

RightCount, a group of Republicans in competitive states, recently restarted a campaign to protect the integrity of state-run elections and oppose Trump’s attempts to federalize them.

“All the accusations that have been made have all been refuted, but he doesn’t want to listen,” said former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a supporter of Trump and a member of the group.

After losing his Republican primary in Louisiana last week when Trump declined to endorse him, U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy criticized the president’s election manipulation claims in his concession speech. Cassidy angered the president by supporting his impeachment following the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack by Trump supporters attempting to halt the 2020 election certification.

“When you participate in democracy, sometimes it doesn’t turn out the way you want it to,” Cassidy said. “But you don’t pout. You don’t whine. You don’t claim the election was stolen.”

President Trump will receive his yearly medical examination on Tuesday at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, just weeks before celebrating his 80th birthday on June 14th.

The scheduled checkup follows twelve months of heightened public focus on what appear to be minor health concerns affecting the president.

Trump regularly portrays himself as having greater energy and physical fitness compared to his Democratic predecessor, who departed the White House last year at 82 years old amid ongoing discussions about his capacity to serve.

However, recent photos displaying a patchy skin condition on his neck have sparked additional health-related inquiries, coming after July 2025 images revealed swollen ankles and a bruised hand that appeared to be covered with cosmetics.

When Trump started his second presidential term in January 2025, he became the oldest individual ever to take the oath of office.

The president continues playing golf regularly, though he made light of his exercise habits during a recent Oval Office gathering where health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr noted that the president covers nine miles each time he plays golf.

“When I am not using the cart,” Trump responded.

White House physician Sean Barbabella has indicated Trump applies a standard topical medication as “a preventative skin treatment” for the neck condition, though he hasn’t provided specifics about what ailment requires treatment.

Following publication of the photographs showing the president’s leg and hand issues last July, Barbabella wrote in a statement that the conditions were harmless and showed no signs of deep vein thrombosis or arterial problems.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt explained to reporters that Trump’s leg swelling resulted from a “common” vein issue, while his hand injury came from extensive handshaking.

Trump revealed last October that he had undergone a magnetic resonance imaging scan that month. The White House initially refused to provide additional information about why the scan was ordered. Leavitt stated only that results showed “exceptional physical health” for Trump.

The president subsequently explained to reporters that he received the MRI during a second physical examination.

“Getting an MRI is very standard. What, you think I shouldn’t have it? Other people get it. … I had an MRI. The doctor said it was the best result he has ever seen as a doctor,” Trump stated.

Healthcare professionals observed that MRIs aren’t normally included in standard physical exams and are typically ordered to obtain detailed internal body images.

In a written statement following the second examination, Barbabella reported that the president’s “cardiac age – a validated measure of cardiovascular vitality via ECG – was found to be approximately 14 years younger than his chronological age.

Trump has also encountered questions after seeming to doze off during multiple meetings, including one with his Cabinet members.

“Some people said, he closed his eyes. Look, it got pretty boring,” Trump told amused officials in February. “I didn’t sleep. I just closed them because I wanted to get the hell outta here.”

His predecessor was diagnosed last year with an “aggressive form” of prostate cancer that had spread to his bones and received radiation treatment.

WASHINGTON — Members of the Congressional Black Caucus reached out to major corporations nationwide on Tuesday, asking them to take a stand against Republican-controlled states’ efforts to redraw congressional maps that would eliminate districts with Black majorities.

The lawmakers sent correspondence to more than 250 businesses, including many that have previously voiced support for voting rights and racial justice causes. The letter asks these companies to speak out against what the caucus members characterize as “coordinated efforts to silence Black voices at the ballot box.” Many of these same corporations had joined together five years ago to urge Congress to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, legislation aimed at strengthening voting protections.

The 2021 business coalition, known as Business for Voting Rights, included some of America’s largest and most influential corporations such as Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Tesla, Salesforce, Target, PayPal, Intel and Starbucks.

This latest appeal represents another attempt by the Congressional Black Caucus and supporters to build opposition against Republican-controlled states that are redrawing electoral boundaries in ways that could weaken Black political influence. Multiple states have begun eliminating congressional districts currently represented by Black Democratic officials following a recent Supreme Court decision that significantly reduced protections under the Voting Rights Act.

“Corporations that have profited from Black consumers, relied on Black workers, and amassed wealth in part from Black communities cannot look away while Black political power is dismantled in plain sight,” Rep. Yvette Clarke, chair of the Black Caucus, said in an interview.

Clarke characterized the correspondence as “putting corporate America on notice,” though she emphasized the caucus wasn’t seeking confrontation with businesses. The letter recipients included international companies with substantial U.S. operations.

Last week, the caucus also urged Black athletes to boycott public universities in states engaging in gerrymandering to eliminate Black-held districts. The Congressional Black Caucus has 59 members, all Democrats, with more than one-third representing Southern states.

Several lawmakers have suggested that widespread demonstrations and federal legislation may be needed to counter the redistricting efforts in Republican-led states. Any new federal voting rights legislation would likely require Democrats to control both congressional chambers and the presidency.

Company responses to these requests remain uncertain. The Associated Press was making efforts to contact them.

“Many companies that previously issued statements after the murder of George Floyd, pledged billions toward racial equity initiatives, and spoke forcefully in defense of democracy following January 6 now face a defining test of whether those commitments were rooted in principle or convenience,” the caucus’ letter states.

This action also highlights ongoing tensions between the caucus and corporate America. A 2024 Black Caucus analysis found that lawmakers were “troubled that some corporations that made pledges in 2020 have taken several steps in the opposite direction,” including backing away from or failing to implement workplace diversity commitments.

“We understand who the occupant in the White House is and the reality of Republicans being in charge,” Democratic Rep. Steven Horsford of Nevada said of the caucus’ message. “But what corporate America also understands is that there will be a shift at some point.”

The correspondence requests that companies publicly denounce the redistricting plans, schedule meetings with Black Caucus members to discuss corporate responsibility in protecting voting rights, and reveal their political contributions to Republican officials in states conducting congressional redistricting.

President Donald Trump initiated this uncommon mid-decade redistricting wave last year by encouraging Texas legislators to redraw their maps to create additional Republican seats. While Democratic-controlled California also responded, primarily Republican states have been redrawing boundaries as the party works to preserve its House majority in this year’s midterm elections.

The Supreme Court ruling accelerated these efforts by permitting even more Republican states to redraw congressional boundaries that had previously safeguarded minority communities.

Horsford, who led the Black Caucus during President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, said the caucus is insisting that companies “stand on the side of democracy, fairness and equal representation.”

“This is about power, who holds it and what it’s used for,” he said. “And when you’re diluting Black economic and political power, we need to know where these companies stand in this moment, and what side of history they’re on.”

The president has a medical examination scheduled for Tuesday at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, bringing fresh attention to ongoing questions about his age and physical condition.

At 79 years old, the president will undergo what the White House calls routine annual preventative medical and dental examinations. This marks his fourth publicly announced medical evaluation since beginning his second term, occurring as he seeks to demonstrate vigor before upcoming midterm elections that will gauge his influence with voters.

Presidential administrations have traditionally shared select findings from these medical checkups for decades, providing citizens with limited insight into their leader’s wellbeing. However, these reports go through White House review and require presidential approval, creating uncertainty about what information reaches the public.

The president will turn 80 next month, making him the oldest individual ever elected to the presidency. His predecessor, former President Joe Biden, was 82 upon leaving office after withdrawing from the 2024 race due to widespread age-related concerns.

A Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos survey from April revealed that fewer than half of American adults believe the president possesses the mental acuity or physical fitness needed for effective leadership.

“I think concern for the president’s physical health is probably at an all-time high, and I think advanced physical age is the No. 1 concern,” said Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman, who served as a White House physician for more than a decade under former presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

According to Kuhlman, a comprehensive examination for someone of the president’s age would typically encompass advanced cardiac testing, cancer screenings, cognitive evaluation, plus standard measurements including height, weight and blood pressure.

While the White House hasn’t revealed specific details about the upcoming visit, officials expressed optimism about the anticipated results.

“President Trump is the sharpest and most accessible President in American history who is working nonstop to solve problems and deliver on his promises, and he remains in excellent health,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement.

Recently, the president has claimed to feel as energetic as he did fifty years ago, despite joking about his preference for fast food and limited exercise routine. However, he remains conscious of age perceptions, mentioning extra care when walking down Air Force One steps to prevent stumbling headlines.

No legal mandate exists requiring presidents to make their health information public, and transparency levels have differed across administrations. The president’s previous medical reports have drawn criticism for lacking detail and containing statistics that medical professionals questioned.

During public events, the president frequently uses makeup to hide hand bruising, which the White House explains results from handshaking and regular aspirin usage. He has occasionally appeared tired during meetings and closed his eyes for extended periods, though he disputes claims of falling asleep.

The president regularly claims to have “aced” cognitive evaluations while often criticizing Biden, who faced mental acuity questions. Some previous physicals included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, designed to detect dementia and cognitive problems. His doctors reported perfect 30 out of 30 scores for the president in 2018 and 2025 examinations.

Nevertheless, critics point to the president’s rambling speeches and sometimes aggressive language as indicators of cognitive deterioration.

Last month, over 30 neurologists, psychiatrists and other medical professionals issued a statement declaring the president mentally unfit for office, warning of an “increasingly dangerous decline” in his conduct based on what they termed “objectively observable signs of serious medical concern.” They acknowledged never having examined him personally.

“Any so-called medical professionals engaging in armchair diagnosis or false speculation for political purposes are clearly breaking the Hippocratic Oath they’ve sworn to,” Ingle said.

Like any patient, presidents control what health information becomes public, explained Sara Rosenthal, a bioethicist at the University of Kentucky studying presidential health. Transparency concerns have intensified as America chooses older leaders like the current president and Biden, she noted.

“I think we can expect very little disclosure about the true health status of any president unless they’re in perfect health,” said Rosenthal, who has suggested an independent medical organization to review and report on the health of the president and those in the line of succession.

The president’s initial medical report of his second term appeared last April. In July, he received a diagnosis of chronic venous insufficiency, a typical condition among older adults causing blood to collect in veins. Photos have captured the president with swollen feet, ankles, and calves, which the White House describes as chronic venous insufficiency symptoms causing “mild swelling” in his lower legs.

After his most recent publicly announced examination in October, characterized as a routine follow-up, the president’s doctor released a single-page summary declaring him in “exceptional health” without revealing many concrete findings.

The regularity of the president’s medical appointments is typical for his age group, according to S. Jay Olshansky of the University of Illinois-Chicago, who researches past presidents’ health. This approach helps identify issues while they remain manageable, Olshansky explained.

Olshansky believes citizens deserve more than White House medical summaries that “may be subject to editorial discretion.” Complete, unedited medical records should be released publicly, he argued: “Nothing should be hidden.”

The White House hasn’t indicated whether the president’s appointment will involve procedures requiring anesthesia. His most recent colon examination occurred in 2024 with a recommended three-year follow-up interval.

Should the president receive anesthesia, Vice President JD Vance would temporarily assume office duties under the 25th Amendment. This last occurred in 2021 when Vice President Kamala Harris briefly took control while Biden underwent a colonoscopy. Former President George W. Bush previously transferred power twice to Vice President Dick Cheney.

A diverse group of West Texas residents has formed an unexpected partnership spanning different political viewpoints to oppose plans for border wall construction in their region.

Throughout the Big Bend area, opposition messaging has emerged on signs, flyers, and at local establishments, including a liquor store in Marfa, Texas, demonstrating the breadth of community resistance to the proposed barrier.

The coalition represents residents from various backgrounds who have found common ground in their opposition to extending border wall infrastructure through their area along the Mexican border.

WASHINGTON — Each morning, Anna Gomez reaches for her phone with the same question: Has the president terminated her employment today?

As the only remaining Democratic member of the Federal Communications Commission, Gomez finds herself in an increasingly urgent battle against what she characterizes as government efforts to silence media outlets and restrict free expression.

Disney, which owns ABC, has become her primary concern as the company faces multiple FCC investigations initiated under Chairman Brendan Carr, an ally of the current administration.

Earlier this month, Gomez sent an extraordinary four-page communication to Disney CEO Josh D’Amaro, detailing what she termed the FCC’s “sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and control” targeting the entertainment giant. Her letter highlighted investigations spanning diversity policies, ABC’s handling of a 2024 presidential debate, guest selections on “The View,” and administrative demands for late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s dismissal.

Gomez expressed particular alarm over the FCC’s decision to expedite reviews of ABC’s broadcasting licenses for its owned stations, viewing this as an intimidation tactic. She characterized this move as “the most egregious assault on the First Amendment this FCC has taken to date.”

Her core message was direct: Resist these pressures. Gomez criticized Disney’s controversial choice to settle a $15 million defamation case just before the administration change, arguing it failed to protect the company and established a dangerous industry precedent.

“That settlement did not buy you peace,” she stated in her letter, which she simultaneously shared on social media platforms. “It only bought you time.”

While D’Amaro has not publicly addressed Gomez’s letter, he has indicated a shift in strategy through recent filings, claiming the FCC’s actions threaten to “chill critical protected speech.”

Speaking from her Washington headquarters, Gomez expressed encouragement about Disney’s new stance and urged other broadcasting companies to prepare for similar confrontations. She represents a rare presence in the capital – among the few Democrats retaining federal agency positions after widespread dismissals aimed at reshaping government bureaucracy.

The Supreme Court is currently examining the legality of these dismissals, with a ruling expected in coming weeks.

Gomez’s current term concludes June 30, though she can continue serving unless dismissed or replaced. Her continued presence enables the commission to maintain quorum, allowing Carr to advance his policy objectives. Given the Senate’s tight margins and limited time before midterm elections, securing a replacement would prove challenging.

Key excerpts from her recent interview:

When asked about her motivation for contacting Disney, Gomez explained: “At the beginning of this administration, I was growing increasingly alarmed by what I saw as this administration’s campaign to control and censor speech. And so I embarked on a tour across the country where I was talking to journalists, local broadcasters, legal scholars, press freedom advocates. And what I came back with was more of a conviction that we really needed to do something.”

She continued: “Then I started watching the capitulation. We saw CBS settle its lawsuit with the president and then agree to terms that basically require an ombudsperson to oversee the content of the network in order to get its transaction approved by the FCC. We saw ABC, of course, settle its lawsuit and I grew more and more and more concerned about the fact that this capitulation breeds capitulation.”

Regarding her strategy, Gomez stated: “I wrote the letter and the letter had two goals in mind. One was to basically put on the record and call out everything that this FCC has done to try to bring Disney to heel but also to encourage it and other broadcasters to stiffen their spine. We know, based on the record of this administration, every time it gets taken to court for these violations of the First Amendment and against the freedom of the press, it loses.”

On potential court challenges, she said: “In the end, what I want is for companies to push back because if this gets to court, any entity that challenges what this FCC is doing is going to win.”

Discussing the FCC’s proper role, Gomez explained: “Traditionally, the FCC has licensed the local broadcast stations, and what we license is actually their spectrum, their airwaves over which they broadcast their television, their radio. And it has done so with three basic principles in mind. Competition, because competition’s always good for consumers and for viewers and for the market. Localism, which really means serving your local market, whether that means actually airing 24 hours a day the content, but truly local content. And finally, viewpoint diversity. We want to encourage more voices, not fewer. And that is, I think, the right role for the FCC. Being a censor is not the right role for the FCC.”

Reflecting on her unexpected role, she noted: “No, never in my entire career did I think that I would be having to speak up this strongly for the First Amendment in our Constitution and our democracy. As you said, I’m a bit of a technocrat. I’m used to talking about the airwaves and I’m used to talking about broadband and how important it is for everyone to have access to broadband. I’m used to talking about really boring things like how to attach to light poles. But media wasn’t something that I particularly thought I would have to really delve into. But, like I said, this administration has just been alarming me so much and so I’ve had to pivot.”

On maintaining professional relationships despite disagreements: “You know, we do have a collegial relationship and we do work well together. He has been in my position and he understands my need to speak out and I do so freely, knowing that some day I may face the consequences for it. But we do work at maintaining a cordial relationship.”

Regarding potential dismissal: “Yes, especially when I saw last year when the administration was firing all the Democratic members of different independent commissions and bodies. I just checked my email every day. Literally every day I pick up my phone and I say, ‘Am I going to work today?’ And so far, so good.”

About her future plans: “I can continue serving for another year and a half-ish after my term expires as long as no one else is nominated and confirmed for my particular slot. So I intend to continue working and to continue speaking out as long as I can.”

PLANO, Texas (AP) — Texas Republicans are deciding their U.S. Senate nominee in Tuesday’s runoff election, concluding a prolonged, contentious and costly primary campaign where President Donald Trump made a late intervention to influence the outcome in his ongoing effort to remove GOP officials he considers insufficiently loyal.

Trump’s backing of state Attorney General Ken Paxton against four-term Sen. John Cornyn provides the challenger with crucial momentum and threatens to make Cornyn the first Republican senator in Texas to lose a primary battle for renomination.

This comes even though Cornyn’s campaign and supporting organizations have invested approximately $90 million in television advertisements since last year, with most of those funds used to attack Paxton.

The race represents another GOP primary where Trump has attempted to retaliate against a Republican he views as not sufficiently faithful. This month, he has successfully supported challengers against sitting officials in Louisiana, Kentucky and Indiana, demonstrating his continued sway over primary election voters.

Paxton’s campaign team and a supportive super PAC launched advertisements highlighting the endorsement within one day of Trump’s announcement. Cornyn recognized that Trump’s intervention would affect the race but indicated he would continue fighting.

“I know who gets to choose our senators, and it’s the people of Texas,” he said hours after the endorsement.

The victor will face Democratic state Rep. James Talarico in November’s general election.

Tuesday’s runoff elections will also determine Democratic U.S. House candidates for districts in Dallas and Houston that strongly favor Democrats, plus a San Antonio-area seat the party aims to capture.

Cornyn outpaced Paxton in the March primary but couldn’t secure a majority in the three-candidate race that also featured U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt, who placed a distant third.

This occurred following a sustained advertising effort by Cornyn’s campaign and allied organizations, primarily targeting Paxton over ethical and personal controversies. The two-term attorney general was cleared in a 2023 impeachment proceeding when accusations of extramarital relationships emerged. Last year, Paxton’s wife initiated divorce proceedings, citing “biblical grounds.”

The coalition of pro-Cornyn organizations has maintained its offensive strategy, outspending Paxton’s campaign and two allied super PACs $16.5 million to $5.9 million since March 3, according to ad-tracking firm AdImpact.

Trump had promised to make an endorsement right after the primary, requesting the unselected candidate to step aside. However, he delayed action until after early voting commenced on May 18.

“Ken Paxton has gone through a lot, in many cases, very unfairly, but he is a Fighter, and knows how to win,” Trump wrote in a social media post endorsing him. “Our Country needs Fighters, and also Loyalty to the Cause of Greatness.”

Pro-Cornyn organizations recently have broadcast advertisements criticizing the attorney general office’s management of a Waco sex abuse case. Pro-Paxton organizations have highlighted Cornyn’s strained relationship with Trump.

The hostile atmosphere could reduce participation in an election already challenged by occurring one day after Memorial Day, Texas Republican strategist Tyler Norris said. Approximately 2 million of Texas’ 18.7 million voters took part in the GOP primary.

The situation could benefit Paxton, whose supporters come more from the most dedicated Trump base in Texas, said Norris, who isn’t connected with either campaign.

“The defining battle lines are based around hyper-negative messaging, which dampens turnout to begin with,” he said. “So who is going to show up is the hardest of the hard core.”

Trump in his endorsement also criticized Cornyn, as he has done with other Republicans who don’t align completely with the president.

He attacked Republican Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy as “a Disloyal Disaster” on May 16, before Cassidy lost a GOP primary for the position he has occupied since 2015. The two-term senator had voted to find Trump guilty after his 2021 impeachment trial regarding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump supported U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow, who moved forward to a runoff with John Fleming, the state treasurer. Cassidy placed far behind them.

Last week, Trump expressed satisfaction as Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a critic of the Trump administration’s approach to the Jeffrey Epstein files, lost his primary to Ed Gallrein. Trump labeled Massie “the worst congressman in the history of our country.”

In supporting Paxton, Trump said Cornyn “was not supportive of me when times were tough” and that “John was very late in backing me.”

Cornyn indicated in 2023 that Trump couldn’t secure the presidency again in 2024 and that his “time has passed him by.” He also initially opposed Trump’s proposal for a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico — a project he now endorses.

Senate GOP leadership supported Cornyn, arguing he would perform better in the general election. Some GOP strategists have contended a Paxton nomination would require millions of additional dollars to promote in the fall, when resources could be used defending Republican seats in more competitive states. Democrats need to gain a net of four seats to control the majority.

Newly elected Rep. Christian Menefee and veteran Rep. Al Green are competing for the party nomination in Texas’ 18th District, which the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature redesigned last year to assist the GOP. The new boundaries created a race between incumbents and concludes a complex series of elections in the Houston region. Menefee was elected in a special runoff in January to the seat previously held by the late Rep. Sylvester Turner, who died in March 2025.

Menefee finished slightly ahead of Green in the March 3 primary but didn’t achieve a majority to prevent the runoff.

Former Rep. Colin Allred and U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson are contending in the Dallas-area 33rd District. Johnson was elected to the position in 2024, the year Allred lost his U.S. Senate challenge to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. Allred was seeking Senate office again this cycle but abandoned his campaign and instead is attempting to return to the House.

Near San Antonio, Democratic leadership is working to stop Maureen Galindo, who has made antisemitic statements, from winning the party’s runoff against Johnny Garcia. While Texas lawmakers redrew the 35th District to favor Republicans, Democrats consider it attainable and don’t want Galindo’s previous remarks to hinder them.

TACOMA, Wash. — A group of four immigration judges in Washington state implemented a controversial detention policy years before it became a nationwide immigration enforcement strategy that overturned decades of established practice.

The refusal to grant bond for numerous individuals facing immigration charges has triggered more than tens of thousands of legal challenges since July, with plaintiffs claiming their constitutional protections against unlawful detention have been violated. The current administration faced a significant legal defeat this month when an appeals court struck down the policy, though two other appeals courts had previously upheld it, potentially leading to a Supreme Court review.

This approach had been in effect for years in Tacoma, where immigration judges at the Northwest ICE Processing Center began refusing bond requests early this decade. Outside of local immigration lawyers, the practice received little attention. However, when the Trump administration implemented the policy last year, it mirrored the judges’ legal reasoning.

Neil Floyd, the sole judge among the four Tacoma officials willing to speak with The Associated Press, explained that court clerks spent approximately six months researching before the judges concluded that Congress had not given them authority to approve bond requests.

“We made the decision that we were going to do it collectively because it was too big a decision for someone to step out that far on their own,” said Floyd, who became the top federal prosecutor in Seattle during President Donald Trump’s second term.

The judges based their decision on a 1996 statute declaring that “applicants for admission” to the United States must remain in custody. This law had traditionally been understood to apply to individuals who recently crossed the border illegally. Those who had lived in the country for extended periods fell under different regulations that permitted bond hearings.

The Tacoma judges appear to be unexpected leaders of such significant policy changes. All four officials — Theresa Scala, who served as chief Tacoma judge at the time; John Odell; Tammy Fitting; and Floyd — began their legal careers representing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, yet each approved asylum requests at rates somewhat above national averages.

Floyd, who departed Tacoma following Trump’s inauguration last year to provide immigration law guidance to the FBI before assuming his current role, described the judges’ determination as a fairness issue rooted in legal interpretation.

“It is the right interpretation of the law, and it’s the only fair one, because if you enter the United States the right way, by coming and knocking on the door to ask for asylum at a port of entry, the law is 100% clear,” Floyd said. “And it has been from the beginning that you are detained until we decide whether or not we’re going to let you in.”

Immigration attorneys in Tacoma expressed shock at the development. They searched nationwide for similar practices but found none.

“It was from our perspective, a pretty blatantly prosecutorial push to keep people locked up,” said Matt Adams, an attorney for Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which sued over the practice. The case has not yet been scheduled for trial.

The lawsuit, filed in March 2025, alleges that the Tacoma judges ignored decades of precedent.

The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which operates more than 70 immigration courts nationwide, did not respond to requests for comment.

In July, ICE announced a major change that mirrors the Tacoma judges’ view, stating that immigrants who have been in the U.S. for years are “applicants for admission” if they didn’t enter the U.S. legally and, as a result, were subject to mandatory detention.

The agency started opposing all bond hearings. The Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals, which establishes policy for courts, supported ICE’s position in September.

The population in ICE custody approximately doubled last year, reaching a peak of around 75,000 in January. ICE intends to spend $38.3 billion to expand detention capacity to 92,300 beds by November’s end, primarily through opening warehouses, or “megacenters,” designed to hold up to 10,000 individuals each. Judges report that extensive ICE raids have intensified the burden.

Previously eligible for bond consideration, approximately 2 million immigrants now face mandatory detention if apprehended. Immigrant detainees have submitted more than 40,000 lawsuits since Trump returned to office 16 months ago, according to an AP tally.

Despite the Trump administration’s position, many immigrants have found success in federal courts. Some federal judges have ordered immediate release, while others return cases to immigration court for bond proceedings.

Victor Cruz, a handyman in Portland, Oregon, spent 24 days in the Tacoma detention center after ICE agents arrested him without a warrant. An immigration judge granted him a bond hearing, and he was released in October. He won his immigration case in February.

Cruz, 56, has U.S. citizens in his immediate family and spends weekends playing with his grandchildren. He keeps a folder in his car with all his immigration documents, wary that immigration authorities could detain him again. He said that he met people in detention who had “been there six months, nine months.”

On a recent Friday in Tacoma, Fitting — one of the original four judges — held bond hearings under orders of a federal judge.

She denied bond for an Oregon dishwasher with a 2002 drunken-driving conviction. But she granted $14,000 bond to another immigrant with no criminal record, while saying that his pathway to legal status is tenuous.

Proposed border barrier construction in West Texas’s Big Bend region has sparked unexpected opposition from both sides of the political aisle. While the Trump administration appears to be reconsidering plans for physical barriers in certain sections of the area – including protected national and state parkland – officials continue pushing forward with more than 170 miles of border fencing planned across agricultural areas and small border towns. This region experiences some of the state’s lowest rates of illegal border crossings, and area residents argue that constructing physical barriers makes little sense in terrain where steep canyon walls and harsh landscape already create natural obstacles. The planned construction would slice through what experts consider the state’s oldest continuously farmed agricultural land, would separate a local rancher from her family’s burial ground, and would disrupt the operations of cattle ranchers located upstream in the area.

The White House has announced that the president will undergo what officials describe as a standard yearly physical examination, coming seven months after his previous visit to Walter Reed medical facility.

Administration officials are highlighting the president’s “excellent health” as ongoing discussions continue regarding the medical realities facing the oldest person ever to be inaugurated as president.

The upcoming medical evaluation is being characterized by the White House as part of routine annual health monitoring procedures.

Advocacy groups supporting LGBT rights have withdrawn their court challenge against Idaho legislation governing bathroom access in public educational facilities. The legal action sought to strike down the law that prohibits males from entering female restrooms within the state’s public school system. The legislation extends beyond bathrooms to include protections for locker rooms, shower facilities, and overnight student accommodations across all grade levels from kindergarten through high school. Multiple states across the nation are enacting comparable restrictions, with many also implementing prohibitions on males participating in female athletic competitions at both public school and university levels.

President Donald Trump announced Monday that future negotiations with Iran must be tied to expanding membership in the Abraham Accords, the diplomatic framework for normalizing relationships with Israel that his first administration established.

Through a social media message, Trump indicated that discussions are moving forward positively but emphasized that any final deal depends on broader participation in the peace agreements initially created in 2020.

The president identified Saudi Arabia and Qatar as nations that should join right away, with Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan following suit. The original signatories, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, became founding members in 2020.

Trump stated that “after all the work done by the United States to try and pull this very complex puzzle together, it should be mandatory that all of these Countries, at a minimum, simultaneously, sign onto the Abraham Accords.”

The president revealed he discussed the Abraham Accords strategy with other leaders during weekend negotiations on Saturday.

While Trump indicated he might allow “one or two” nations to opt out, he expects most to participate willingly. Egypt and Jordan maintain existing diplomatic recognition of Israel through established peace agreements.

The timeline and structure for completing any Iranian agreement remains uncertain, as does how Abraham Accords participation would influence such negotiations. Trump hinted that Iran itself might eventually become a signatory if discussions succeed.

The accords represent a collection of diplomatic, economic and security partnerships developed through American mediation during Trump’s initial presidency, starting with Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, then expanding to include Sudan, Morocco, and most recently, Kazakhstan.

The agreements were designed to foster regional cooperation across the Middle East and North Africa, with the administration positioning them as stepping stones toward comprehensive Israeli diplomatic relations.

Texas Republican voters will cast ballots Tuesday in a high-stakes Senate primary runoff that has drawn national attention as the latest test of former President Trump’s influence within the GOP.

The runoff features U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, who led the initial March 3 primary, facing off against state Attorney General Ken Paxton, who finished second but secured Trump’s backing on May 19.

Beyond the Senate race, voters will also decide primary runoffs in over a dozen congressional districts, along with state races for lieutenant governor, attorney general and other offices.

Cornyn, seeking his fifth term, was forced into Tuesday’s one-on-one contest after two GOP rivals prevented him from securing a majority in the initial primary. The matchup gives Trump another chance to remove incumbents he considers insufficiently supportive of his leadership and policies.

The outcome will determine who faces Democratic state Rep. James Talarico in November’s general election, as Democrats express growing confidence about their prospects in the traditionally red state while working to regain Senate control.

Trump’s endorsement of Paxton noted that Cornyn “was not supportive of me when times were tough,” though the former president’s statement was less harsh than his recent criticisms of Republican incumbents in other states. Cornyn had been critical of Trump before the president’s 2024 campaign launch.

Geographic voting patterns from the March primary suggest Trump’s strongest counties could prove decisive. While many counties where Trump won 80% or more of the 2024 vote are rural with small populations, they collectively represented about one-fifth of GOP primary voters. Paxton outperformed Cornyn 45% to 40% in these areas, while Cornyn did better statewide elsewhere.

In counties where Trump received 50% to 80% support, Cornyn earned roughly 42% of votes, narrowly beating Paxton by one percentage point. Republican primary voters in the 12 counties carried by Democrat Kamala Harris in 2024 favored Cornyn 44% to 40%. These Harris counties accounted for 25% of total primary votes, exceeding the share from Trump’s strongest areas.

Historical data shows only two Texas U.S. senators have lost primaries in the past century.

Congressional redistricting in 2025, conducted at Trump’s encouragement to help Republicans maintain House control, created several notable primary runoffs. Democratic U.S. Reps. Christian Menefee and Al Green will compete in the redrawn 18th Congressional District, while Democratic U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson faces former Democratic U.S. Rep. Colin Allred in the new 33rd Congressional District.

Polling locations close at 7 p.m. local time across the state. Most polls operate on Central time and close at 8 p.m. ET, while western Texas polls on Mountain time close at 9 p.m. ET.

The Associated Press will report vote totals and call winners in Republican primary runoffs for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, railroad commissioner, Court of Criminal Appeals, and state legislative seats, plus Democratic primary runoffs for U.S. House, lieutenant governor, attorney general, state Board of Education and state House races.

Voting rules allow residents who skipped the March 3 primary to participate in either party’s runoff. Those who voted in a party primary may only vote in that same party’s runoff, while non-partisan primary voters can choose either party’s runoff.

Texas had nearly 19 million registered voters as of the March primary, when approximately 2.2 million Republican and 2.3 million Democratic ballots were cast.

The 2022 Republican primary for Texas Attorney General drew about 1.9 million voters initially, dropping to roughly 932,000 for the runoff. Early voting comprised about 63% of March’s Republican primary total.

As of Thursday, approximately 621,000 Republican and 262,000 Democratic primary ballots had already been submitted for Tuesday’s election.

Counties typically release complete or nearly complete early and absentee voting results in their first update before reporting Election Day totals.

March’s Senate primary results began at 8 p.m. ET when most polls closed, reaching 75% counted by 11:39 p.m. ET and continuing until about 5:58 a.m. ET with roughly 98% tabulated.

The Associated Press declares winners only when no possible scenario allows trailing candidates to overcome their deficit. For uncalled races, the AP continues covering developments like candidate concessions while clearly noting no winner has been declared.

Texas mandates automatic recounts solely for tie votes. Losing candidates may request and fund recounts when margins fall below 10% of the winner’s total. The AP may call races subject to potential recounts if leads appear too large for recounts or legal challenges to alter outcomes.

Tuesday’s results will leave 161 days until the 2026 midterm elections.

Federal prosecutors have once more petitioned a court to remove a legal barrier blocking President Donald Trump’s ballroom construction project, citing Saturday’s White House shooting as evidence of pressing security needs.

In court documents submitted Sunday spanning five pages, the Justice Department argued the weekend incident demonstrates the urgent requirement for “top level, state of the art security at the White House, including the ballroom,” describing the project as essential for national security purposes. The filing also requests dismissal of the entire legal challenge to the construction.

This marks the second time the DOJ has sought to have a federal judge dismiss the ballroom lawsuit, previously making a similar request following a thwarted attack during the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in April.

The legal challenge originates from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a congressionally chartered nonprofit organization. The group indicated it would continue pursuing its lawsuit despite the Justice Department’s April request to abandon the case following that month’s security incident.

According to the Secret Service, the individual who opened fire at a White House checkpoint Saturday was struck by officers and later died at a hospital Saturday evening.

PLANO, Texas (AP) — Texas voters won’t catch much of the Republican U.S. Senate hopefuls in person on Monday. However, avoiding television and other screens is another story entirely.

Neither Sen. John Cornyn nor state Attorney General Ken Paxton had any public campaign appearances on their calendars for the closing day of their extended battle lasting more than a year for the GOP nomination. Their competition for Tuesday’s runoff election persists as it has for months — fierce and relentless — through advertisements exceeding $109 million, with the majority coming from Cornyn’s campaign.

Cornyn has planned to host his yearly, non-campaign gathering in San Antonio honoring high school students who will attend the country’s service academies. The incumbent senator pursuing a fifth term conducted his final public campaign appearance in Corpus Christi on Friday, before Tuesday’s election.

Paxton concluded his campaign with events Thursday in the Austin region and San Antonio, choosing to allow his campaign and a super PAC to promote his central campaign theme: President Donald Trump’s endorsement of him on May 19.

Trump’s backing and simultaneous rejection of Cornyn, who has maintained a strained public connection with the president, occurred during the second day of early voting, which concluded Friday.

While both candidates remained out of public view during the weekend, Trump renewed his backing for Paxton on Sunday, while criticizing Cornyn as inadequately faithful to him.

Paxton, Trump wrote on social media, “was also very loyal to your favorite President, ME,” while describing Cornyn as “VERY disloyal to me.” This marked Trump’s harshest criticism of Cornyn, who had questioned his 2024 political comeback prospects, and mirrored the president’s criticism of Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy before his defeat in the May 15 GOP Senate primary.

After Trump’s demand for payback, Republican voters in Indiana and Kentucky have similarly selected GOP primary opponents over sitting Republican officials who have opposed the president or his policies.

For an election anticipated to attract only a small portion of Texas’ 18.7 million registered voters, both candidates’ campaigns and allied organizations continued flooding all Texans with advertisements, though Cornyn’s supporters spent more than Paxton’s.

“It’s just a slug fest, with the campaigns and third-party groups slugging it out,” said Wayne Hamilton, a former executive director of the Texas Republican Party.

Cornyn’s campaign combined with allied super PACs have significantly outspent pro-Paxton organizations throughout the past year, by nearly nine-to-one. However, this disparity has narrowed as the runoff has drawn closer. During the campaign’s final week, combined pro-Cornyn advertising expenditures were less than double Paxton’s group spending.

Cornyn’s network maintained advertisements targeting Paxton regarding ethical and personal issues that have followed him with minimal impact during the campaign. Cornyn’s campaign also revived an advertisement highlighting his record of supporting Trump’s legislative priorities in the Senate.

Paxton’s campaign and supporting organizations shifted midweek to exclusively running advertisements featuring Trump’s endorsement, although Paxton’s main super PAC, Lone Star Liberty Fund, started broadcasting one during the weekend designed to question state Rep. James Talarico, the Texas Democratic Senate nominee.

DALLAS (AP) — Following six years in the U.S. House and two failed Senate bids, Colin Allred says he regularly encounters voters who believe politicians are simply seeking personal financial gain in Washington.

“‘What about the stock trading in Congress? What about people getting rich in Congress?’” Allred reports hearing from constituents frequently. “And I have to say to them, you’re absolutely right about that, too. We need to be better.”

Allred is competing against Rep. Julie Johnson in Tuesday’s Democratic runoff for a Dallas-area House seat, joining numerous candidates attempting to tap into public frustration regarding congressional stock trading. Allred has criticized Johnson for transactions involving firms such as Palantir, a data analytics company connected to President Donald Trump’s administration.

Johnson explained that a financial manager handled her transactions and accused Allred of being “only out for himself.” She referenced financial disclosures showing Allred’s wealth nearly doubled while serving in Congress, though Allred maintained his assets were placed in a blind trust and the increase stemmed from his wife’s earnings as a law firm partner.

“To be clear, the sum total I made on that trade was only $90,” Johnson stated regarding her Palantir stock. “My opponent is trying to make it seem like it was hundreds or thousands.”

This contentious race reflects wider Democratic Party disagreements about money’s influence in politics. Previously championed mainly by progressive activists and reform advocates, claims that political opponents are corrupt or controlled by special interests have become standard in Democratic primaries. This increased scrutiny of lawmakers’ personal finances comes as the party seeks to strengthen its anti-corruption messaging against Trump and develop a reform agenda should Democrats gain control in the midterms.

Trump ran on pledges to “drain the swamp,” exploiting Americans’ distrust of Washington’s political establishment. With his family now benefiting financially during his return to the White House, Democrats are working to reclaim advantage on an issue that could resonate with voters.

“The difficulty is that right now, no party has the mantle on anti-corruption,” explained Daniel Lobo-Lewis, a Washington political consultant. “Many voters outside of the beltway see both parties as corrupt, because they see all politicians as bought by the donors or by their own self-interest.”

Lobo-Lewis and Nico Agosto established the Political Integrity Project last year to monitor stock trading and corporate donations by Congress members.

The group requests candidates sign an “integrity pledge” promising to avoid stock trading or corporate donations while serving in Congress and commit not to become lobbyists after leaving office. Approximately 90 challengers and seven current lawmakers have signed the pledge, all Democrats.

“If we want to, in any way, start rebuilding trust in our political institutions, it starts with no-brainer changes like this that have an approval rating above and beyond any other issue you could imagine,” Lobo-Lewis stated.

Congress has not yet passed a stock trading prohibition for members, although insider trading remains illegal for legislators as it is for everyone else. Multiple proposals exist on Capitol Hill but none have advanced.

A bipartisan measure to prohibit congressional stock trading failed to progress this year despite Trump’s endorsement during his State of the Union address. Democrats continue disagreeing over alleged loopholes in their competing proposals.

A competitive Democratic-leaning Utah congressional race has included attacks on candidates’ personal wealth. State Sen. Nate Blouin criticized his primary opponent, former Rep. Ben McAdams, for owning equity in a Utah data center company, and attacked other candidates for previous investments and employment.

McAdams said the equity worth several thousand dollars represented payment for previous contract work his government consulting firm completed while he was a private citizen. His campaign defended the data center project by noting it would use no water and operate on clean energy.

A McAdams spokesperson also alleged Blouin “is currently hiding his corporate donations” by removing them from campaign disclosure reports, which McAdams’ campaign claims “is not only deceitful, it breaks campaign finance law.”

In an interview, Blouin denied breaking the law and explained he removed the donations because he returned the money to each donor.

“It was actually quite uncomfortable to return some of those,” Blouin said, because some firms included local businesses and clean energy companies. “But there is a perception that campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies influence votes, and I think there is some truth to that.”

In a New York City congressional district encompassing both Wall Street and the Democratic Socialists of America’s headquarters, the city’s former comptroller, Brad Lander, has accused Rep. Dan Goldman of attempting to purchase another term by using personal wealth to match campaign contributions. Goldman, an heir to the Levi Strauss family fortune, says he placed all assets in a blind trust after taking office in 2023.

A Goldman spokesperson said Lander is “running a deceitful campaign based on absurd lies that Dan is beholden to special interests” and that Goldman has raised more campaign funds than Lander “without taking a dime of corporate PAC money.” Goldman has invested personal money in the race, the spokesperson said, “to ensure that the NY-10 voters can be sure that he is beholden only to them and his principles.”

Lander said Goldman’s spending is “not illegal, but it is certainly anti-democratic when a quarter-billionaire like Dan Goldman not only dumps millions of his own inherited wealth into his elections but also solicits money from the same forces who are rigging the economy and worsening the affordability crisis.”

Even lawmakers who support congressional stock trading bans are facing criticism.

Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman of California confronts multiple primary challengers who have criticized the congressman for owning stocks while serving in Congress. Sherman does not trade individual stocks and supports a trading ban.

“I only own three individual stocks which I inherited from my mother when she passed away, which were originally acquired by my grandmother,” Sherman explained. “I have never sold them because I made a promise to my constituents that I would not buy and sell individual stocks.”

One of Sherman’s primary challengers is Jake Levine, a former climate adviser to President Joe Biden, who signed the Political Integrity Project pledge. However, Sherman said Levine “refuses to disclose key elements of his $18 million stock portfolio, and actively bought and sold stocks while serving on the National Security Council.” Levine has stated he cannot disclose the portfolio because his family manages it and he has no oversight.

In the campaign to replace former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California State Sen. Scott Wiener has criticized his progressive opponent, Saikat Chakrabarti, regarding his personal wealth. Chakrabarti is a former software engineer who earned millions as an early Stripe employee. He later became Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s first chief of staff.

Wiener said Chakrabarti “has enormous investments” and “is trying to buy this seat” while “spreading bogus conspiracy theories” with his wealth. He criticized Chakrabarti for not revealing the past decade of stock trades.

“If you’re making a ban on stock trades a central part of your campaign — as Saikat is doing, running around saying that everyone under the sun is corrupt — how about you tell the voters about your own stock trading history,” Wiener said.

Chakrabarti responded that his wealth as a private citizen is irrelevant to his potential service in office and that he would place all assets in a blind trust if elected. He criticized Wiener for receiving support from super PACs funded by AI firm Anthropic and other major corporations.

“This is all part of a larger problem, which is just the whole idea of corruption in our politics,” Chakrabarti said. “If you’re in Congress, you sit on committees that oversee a lot of these industries, and it’s unethical to be using that insider information, that knowledge to make stock trades. But that doesn’t apply to a private citizen.”

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump no longer has former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to blame for economic woes like rising mortgage rates and sluggish growth.

With Kevin Warsh now serving as the nation’s top central banker – cementing Trump’s control over key economic policy positions – the political calculus has changed completely. Unlike Powell, whom Trump claimed was forced upon him by advisers including former Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin during his first term, Warsh represents Trump’s personal choice, making the president accountable for the outcomes.

Trump underscored this partnership during Warsh’s White House swearing-in ceremony Friday, attended by cabinet members, Supreme Court justices and senior advisers in a celebratory setting. The president told Warsh to “do your own thing and do a great job.”

“Kevin understands that when the economy is booming that is a good thing…we want it to boom…We don’t want to see it stifled,” Trump said.

MIDTERM ELECTIONS AT RISK

Despite winning reelection on promises to reduce costs and tackle “affordability” challenges for American families, Trump’s economic approval ratings have plummeted.

Consumer sentiment data released approximately 90 minutes before Warsh’s ceremony revealed widespread pessimism nationwide. Economic confidence among independents – crucial voters in the approaching midterm congressional races – and even Republicans dropped to the lowest point of Trump’s second presidency.

Thirty-year mortgage rates have climbed back above 6.5%, reaching a nine-month peak and continuing to burden a struggling housing sector. Overall prices have kept rising during Trump’s tenure, contradicting campaign promises of immediate reductions from “day one” of his presidency. Since March 2025, the inflation measure the Fed monitors for its 2% goal has jumped from 2.3% annually to 3.5%.

Average gasoline prices reached $4.55 per gallon Friday, compared to under $3 before Trump initiated strikes against Iran in late February.

How Warsh’s early performance as Fed chief might influence Trump’s Republican Party’s midterm chances remains uncertain and potentially problematic.

Rising inflation historically hurts incumbent parties when voters worry about finances, yet fighting it typically requires unpopular interest rate increases that Trump would certainly oppose.

Additionally, the Fed operates as a decentralized institution where new chairs must gradually establish authority while facing global scrutiny for signs of Trump’s interference.

“Powell was a really great scapegoat for Trump for issues that had nothing to do with Powell,” said Richard Stern, who studies economic policy at the conservative Advancing American Freedom think tank. Now “it’s going to be Trump’s economy…The big thing everybody was concerned with, the price increases, the affordability problem, all of that isn’t going to go away for years, many years, probably…And that’s independent of anything Trump is going to do or could do, and it’s independent of anything Warsh is going to do.”

Warsh, 56, brings experience as both a lawyer and financier who previously served as a Fed governor from 2006 to 2011. Since leaving, he has worked to position himself for a return as chair. His professional influences include legendary monetarist economist Milton Friedman and former Secretary of State George Shultz, while his partnership with Wall Street heavyweight Stanley Druckenmiller brought substantial wealth beyond his wife’s interest in the Estee Lauder cosmetics empire.

However, his personal and political connections to Trump ultimately secured his appointment, with the president expressing regret over choosing Powell instead of Warsh in 2017.

MANAGING A COMPLEX INSTITUTION

Powell has decided to remain as a Fed governor despite Trump’s previous attempts to undermine the Fed’s independence in setting monetary policy, creating another unusual element of Warsh’s early tenure leading the world’s most influential central bank.

While some Fed chairs have wielded significant power, including former leaders like Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan, the U.S. central bank intentionally operates as an unwieldy system featuring a seven-member Board of Governors in Washington and 12 regional Fed bank presidents who all participate in policy discussions.

Recent years have seen chairs move toward building consensus. Warsh has indicated he prefers aggressive debate with more disagreement and readiness to potentially catch financial markets off-guard with policy changes, moving away from the forward guidance recently used to prepare the public.

Whether international investors welcome this approach remains questionable, but recent Fed meetings suggest his colleagues are prepared for the “family fight” Warsh said during confirmation hearings he enjoys.

April’s Fed meeting produced the most dissenting votes in over three decades, with meeting minutes showing most of Warsh’s new colleagues believe interest rates may need to increase – contrary to Trump’s recent expectations and what Warsh had previously argued for.

This divided group includes PhD economists with different technical expertise than Warsh, senior investment professionals with comparable market experience, and their former leader Powell. Among the six remaining governors, three were chosen by former President Joe Biden, including one, Lisa Cook, whom Trump is attempting to remove.

As they consider future policy directions, investors appear convinced that interest rates must rise given persistent inflation. Yields on long-term bonds that determine consumer borrowing costs are already climbing.

A fatal shooting at a San Diego Islamic Center has intensified national discussions about political violence, bias crimes, and extremism in America – a country already rattled by antisemitic incidents, threats against government officials, the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and multiple attempts to harm President Donald Trump.

The San Diego incident on May 18, 2026, claimed three lives at the mosque, including security guard Amin Abdullah, who officials and community leaders say prevented a larger tragedy by confronting the assailants and activating security measures that protected children inside the building. The two assailants, reported as 17-year-old Cain Clark and 18-year-old Caleb Vazquez, subsequently died from what appeared to be self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Law enforcement officials are investigating the incident as a bias crime while examining evidence of internet-based radicalization and white supremacist beliefs.

This incident occurred less than twelve months after a string of attacks that have intensified worries about whether ideological and political violence is becoming more common, more visible, or simply harder to control in an age of fractured media landscapes, internet extremism, and eroding faith in institutions.

In May 2025, two Israeli Embassy personnel, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, were fatally shot outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC. The following month in Boulder, Colorado, an individual attacked participants in a demonstration calling for the release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza, wounding multiple people in what federal investigators classified as a targeted terrorist act and potential bias crime.

These incidents were followed in September 2025 by the murder of Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and one of America’s most prominent conservative activists. Kirk was fatally shot while delivering remarks at Utah Valley University, in what Utah Gov. Spencer Cox described as a political assassination. Prosecutors subsequently filed aggravated murder charges against Tyler Robinson, stating that sentencing could be enhanced because Kirk was allegedly targeted for his political views.

American institutions faced additional pressure in April 2026, when Cole Tomas Allen was federally indicted on charges including attempted assassination of President Trump following an armed incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington. This episode came after the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, where Trump sustained injuries, one rally participant died, and several others were wounded.

The accumulation of these incidents doesn’t indicate they stem from one organized movement. The motivations, ideological foundations, and operational methods vary. Some attacks have targeted Jewish individuals or Israelis. Others have focused on Muslims. Still others have involved politicians, public personalities, or government institutions. However, the repeated occurrence of violence across ideological and community boundaries has generated a broader sense of national insecurity.

John King, a technology strategist and former US government communications engineer who worked on mission-critical command-and-control communications systems supporting senior national leadership, explained that today’s climate results from multiple intersecting pressures, including diminishing institutional confidence, fragmented media environments, economic and cultural concerns, and the rapid pace at which digital platforms distribute information.

“What makes the current period unique is the interaction between technology and politics,” King told The Media Line. “Artificial intelligence, deepfakes, automated influence campaigns, and algorithmically amplified misinformation can accelerate polarization by making it more difficult for citizens to distinguish fact from manipulation. While political disagreement has always been part of American democracy, the velocity and scale of modern information systems can intensify tensions and shorten the time available for reflection and verification,” he explained.

These recent incidents also coincide with elevated levels of documented hostility toward religious minorities. Both Jewish and Muslim communities have reported increasing fear, threats, and attacks since the Gaza conflict began, while civil rights organizations have cautioned that bias crimes and hate incidents are increasingly connected to international conflicts, domestic political discourse, and online radicalization. These statistics also have methodological limitations: advocacy organizations track reported incidents and complaints, while official hate-crime statistics rely on law-enforcement reporting, which remains incomplete and voluntary.

Joe Young, director of the Patterson School of Diplomacy at the University of Kentucky, believes the recent violence is concerning but should be viewed within historical perspective.

“These violent events are disturbing,” Young told The Media Line. “And I think connected to larger polarization processes in the country. With that said, the amount of violence we are witnessing is not as bad as the 1960s and 1860s. So not historically large numbers of events,” he noted.

This historical context is significant. America has experienced periods of far more sustained political violence, including the Civil War period, Reconstruction, the assassinations and racial violence of the 1960s, and previous waves of extremist activity. However, the current era is distinctive in how domestic anger is channeled through digital platforms, partisan identities, and global conflicts that are quickly incorporated into American public discourse.

King explained that antisemitic attacks, anti-Muslim violence, and politically motivated violence often stem from different ideologies and grievances, but can still function within a shared environment of polarization, distrust, and radicalization. He identified social media platforms as a crucial component of that environment because they can expose individuals to grievance-focused content that reinforces existing beliefs and separates them from alternative viewpoints.

“Whether the underlying ideology is political, religious, ethnic, or conspiratorial, the mechanisms of radicalization often follow similar patterns: the creation of in-group and out-group identities, the amplification of perceived threats, and the gradual dehumanization of others,” King stated.

Young made a comparable observation in more straightforward terms, explaining that perpetrators of political violence often identify an enemy responsible for their grievances.

“Most perpetrators of political violence identify some other for why their current situation is bad,” Young said. “For some people in the US, it could be Jews. For some, Muslims. Or maybe even ICE or members of the current administration. Unfortunately, there are lots of people in the country that someone blames for the challenges we face,” he added.

The Gaza conflict has become one of the most obvious examples of how international events can impact domestic tensions. The killing of the two Israeli Embassy staff members in Washington and the Boulder attack against a group supporting hostages demonstrated how Middle Eastern events can translate into violence against civilians or community members in America who have no direct connection to the conflict. Meanwhile, the San Diego mosque attack highlighted that Muslims are also victims of radicalized violence, particularly from far-right or white supremacist networks.

“Events in the Middle East can also have a direct impact on domestic tensions within the United States,” King said. “Conflicts involving Israel, Gaza, Iran, or other regional actors frequently generate strong emotional reactions that can spill into local communities far removed from the conflict itself. Unfortunately, this can increase hostility toward Jewish, Muslim, Arab, or other communities who have no connection to acts of violence overseas,” he explained.

King warned that the greater risk is that different forms of extremism can start to reinforce each other, with each incident deepening fear and mistrust and creating a cycle where one act of violence is used to justify another. For democratic societies, he said, the challenge is maintaining the distinction between legitimate political or religious disagreement and intimidation or violence.

Young also connected the Gaza conflict to radicalization, while distinguishing between different ideological sources of violence.

“The war in Gaza has certainly radicalized some on the left,” Young said. “We have seen attacks in the US and abroad on civilians unconnected to the war. It’s not clear why this mosque in particular was targeted in San Diego. But it seems the teens were flirting with far-right/Nazi propaganda,” he added.

The San Diego incident has attracted particular attention because of the alleged role of online environments. According to reporting based on law enforcement sources, the attackers connected online, left writings expressing hatred toward multiple groups, and referenced white supremacist and neo-Nazi concepts. The case fits a broader pattern where young attackers absorb ideological material, tactical inspiration, and performative models of violence from digital subcultures.

Young said the internet has made it simpler for isolated individuals to find each other, but he cautioned against characterizing online radicalization as a completely new phenomenon.

“In the San Diego case, these teens met online and planned their violence online,” Young said. “With that said, we saw similar violent events in the US before these online spaces existed. I think what’s different is that it is easier to find like-minded individuals. But as I said, it still happened before these online spaces, the internet, and social media,” he added.

King characterized the same issue as a matter of speed and scale, rather than direct causation. He said digital platforms accelerate the distribution of emotionally charged content and can immerse users in simplified narratives of heroes, villains, victims, and enemies. Most people exposed to such material never become violent, he said, but vulnerable individuals may be repeatedly exposed to extreme messaging, conspiracy theories, dehumanizing language, or calls for retaliation.

“The danger is not that technology directly causes violence, but that it can accelerate radicalization, reinforce grievances, and lower the barriers between online hostility and real-world action,” King said.

The attacks on Trump and the murder of Kirk have added another dimension to the debate because they directly target political leadership and political expression. For many Americans, Kirk’s assassination represented a breakdown in the boundary between political hostility and physical violence. But Young argued that assassination attempts against presidents and public figures, however disturbing, are not without precedent in American history.

“I don’t think these are particularly unique or different from the past,” Young said. “These types of assassinations are horrible, but almost every modern us president has been a target, and some have been killed. Four US presidents have been killed in office, and Reagan, Trump, and Teddy Roosevelt were shot and injured but survived,” he added.

This perspective doesn’t minimize the danger, but it complicates the narrative that America is entering a completely unprecedented era. What appears different is not only the violence itself, but the surrounding ecosystem: the immediate circulation of images, conspiracies, and accusations; the use of attacks to mobilize supporters; and the speed with which one incident becomes absorbed into broader partisan narratives.

The institutional challenge is therefore dual. Authorities must prevent attacks by lone actors or small cells that may radicalize quickly and leave few traditional warning signs. At the same time, political leaders, media platforms, schools, religious institutions, and civil society organizations must address the conditions that make violence appear legitimate to a small minority.

King said American institutions have become more aware of threats linked to political violence, hate crimes, and domestic extremism, and that attacks are sometimes disrupted before they occur. But he also warned that traditional security models were largely designed to identify organized groups and coordinated plots, while modern radicalization can develop quickly, often online, and involve individuals with little or no connection to formal extremist organizations.

“The challenge going forward is developing approaches that address not only physical security threats but also the social and technological conditions that can contribute to extremism,” King said. “The long-term objective is not merely to stop individual attacks, but to strengthen societal resilience before violence becomes an option for vulnerable individuals,” he added.

The question of political responsibility is more divisive. Both experts argued that rhetoric from leaders matters, though Young placed particular responsibility on the current president.

“Elites could certainly tone down the rhetoric,” Young said. “Political opponents aren’t enemies. We are all Americans. We all want what’s best for the country, but offer different ways to get there. Unfortunately, our current president is the one who could be the most effective at lowering the political temperature but has not shown a willingness or ability to do so,” he added.

King, without focusing on one political figure, said public language can either contain or intensify a volatile environment.

“Political restraint from public figures is also urgent,” King said. “Leaders cannot control every unstable individual, but they can either lower the temperature or inflame it. Language that dehumanizes opponents, religious communities, immigrants, or political adversaries creates a permissive environment for intimidation and violence. Responsible leadership requires making clear that disagreement is legitimate, but violence and collective blame are not,” he added.

The policy responses are difficult because they touch some of the most polarized areas of American life: guns, speech, policing, online surveillance, hate-crime enforcement, and civil liberties.

King argued that immediate security measures are necessary, but insufficient without longer-term social repair.

“Realistic solutions need to operate on several levels at the same time,” King said. “There is no single policy lever that will solve political violence, antisemitism, anti-Muslim hatred, or extremist radicalization,” he added.

In the near term, King said stronger security for vulnerable religious and community institutions is essential, including better threat reporting channels, closer coordination with law enforcement and practical security support for synagogues, mosques, schools and public venues. But he also emphasized that such measures must remain within constitutional limits and respect free speech and civil liberties.

He pointed to education and community engagement as longer-term tools to rebuild trust before the next crisis.

“Once violence happens, everyone becomes reactive,” King said. “The harder but more effective work is creating relationships in advance so that communities can respond together rather than retreat into fear and suspicion,” he added.

King also identified gun policy as one of the most politically difficult issues in any discussion of violence prevention, given the reality of widespread firearm access and deep constitutional, cultural and partisan divisions in America. Measures such as stronger background checks, red-flag laws and restrictions on access for individuals who present credible threats may be practical from a prevention standpoint, he said, but remain politically difficult.

America is not witnessing political violence on the scale of its most violent historical periods. But the current wave has exposed a dangerous convergence: heavily armed individuals, online radicalization, global conflicts imported into domestic identity politics, and public rhetoric that often treats opponents not as rivals but as existential threats.

The San Diego mosque shooting, the antisemitic attacks connected to the Israel-Gaza war, the assassination of Kirk and the attempted attacks on Trump do not form one single story. They are different events with different victims, ideologies and perpetrators. But together, they point to the same national vulnerability: a society struggling to maintain democratic disagreement without allowing grievance, identity and political fear to become a pathway to violence.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s developing agreement to conclude the Iran conflict is facing sharp pushback from Republican colleagues who support tougher measures against Tehran’s leadership and worry about missing a chance to weaken a long-standing Middle Eastern adversary.

The agreement that the Republican president described as “largely negotiated” has prompted various legislators, former administration officials, and conservative policy experts to publicly question whether the currently understood terms would make the entire conflict meaningless.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, characterized the president’s choice to attack Iran as the “most consequential” decision of his second term and urged against easing pressure now.

“If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime — still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’ — now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake,” Cruz posted Saturday on the social media platform X. His comments came after Trump’s briefing following conversations with Israeli leadership and other regional U.S. partners.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who maintains close ties with Trump, criticized any agreement that would leave Iran viewed as a regional powerhouse while maintaining its capacity to target Gulf oil facilities.

Sen. Roger Wicker, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, challenged the wisdom of a suggested 60-day ceasefire, calling it a “disaster.”

“Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!” stated Wicker, R-Miss.

Trump, who frequently emphasizes his deal-making skills and dislikes appearing disadvantaged in negotiations, rejected criticism of an agreement he said was not “even fully negotiated yet.”

“So don’t listen to the losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about,” he posted on his social media platform.

Trump described the agreement he and his team are developing as “THE EXACT OPPOSITE” of a nuclear deal Iran signed during the Democratic Obama administration. Trump withdrew from that arrangement and has been working to establish a replacement.

“Both sides must take their time and get it right. There can be no mistakes!” Trump stated.

He noted that a U.S. military blockade of Iranian ports would continue “in full force and effect until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed.”

Trump also received backing from some Capitol Hill members.

GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, frequently at odds with the president, supported the White House’s strategy.

“War virtually always ends with negotiations,” Paul posted on X. “Critics of President Trump’s peace negotiations should give President Trump the space to find an American First solution.”

According to the framework, the conflict would conclude with Iran reopening the strait and surrendering its highly enriched uranium reserves, with specific details and schedules to be determined during a subsequent 60-day period, regional officials informed The Associated Press on Sunday.

Polling indicates the conflict, which started when the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, lacks public support and has cost U.S. taxpayers a minimum of $29 billion as of this month. Thirteen military personnel have died during the operation.

Trump originally predicted the conflict would end within four to six weeks, but the standoff persists. Iran’s blockade of the strait, which handles approximately 20% of worldwide energy shipments, has disrupted the global economy and driven up gasoline and commodity prices.

Mike Pompeo, one of Trump’s first-term secretaries of state, claimed on Saturday that the developing agreement appeared similar to the Obama-era deal from which Trump withdrew.

“Not remotely America First,” Pompeo posted on X, triggering a profanity-filled response from Steven Cheung, the White House director of communications.

John Bolton, a national security adviser during the first term who has become a presidential critic, suggested the emerging plan details appeared to benefit the Iranian government.

“If news reports about the impending Iran deal are correct, the ayatollahs will have won a significant victory,” Bolton wrote Sunday on X. “They will be back on the road to nuclear weapons, supporting global terrorism and repressing their own people.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio responded on Sunday during a diplomatic visit to India, telling reporters at a press briefing that no president has taken a firmer stance against Iran than Trump.

“His commitment to that principle that they’ll never have a nuclear weapon shouldn’t be questioned by anybody,” Rubio stated. “And the idea that somehow this president, given everything he’s already proven he’s willing to do, is going to somehow agree to a deal that ultimately winds up putting Iran in a stronger position when it comes to nuclear ambitions is absurd. That’s just not going to happen.”

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Trump opponent who had supported legislation to limit the president’s war powers against Iran, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that while the terms remain unclear, “if Lindsey Graham and Ted Cuz are crashing out last night, I’d say it’s probably a pretty good deal.”

Massie will depart Congress in January after angering Trump and losing his GOP primary last week to a Trump-endorsed opponent.

Congressional members appeared on Sunday television programs with starkly contrasting opinions about a potential agreement to resolve the Iran conflict, with party affiliation largely determining their positions on the deal reportedly being negotiated by President Donald Trump.

Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, criticized the reported framework as resembling nothing more than “the pre-war status quo” with Iran. Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” Van Hollen stated: “I think this was a blunder. When you’re digging a hole, you should stop digging, and that sounds like maybe what we’re doing finally.”

New York Republican Representative Mike Lawler, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, offered praise for Trump’s negotiation strategy with Iran. During his appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Lawler commented: “I think on the whole what the administration has been able to do for the first time in 47 years is force the remnants of this regime into a negotiation, a real negotiation.”

New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker delivered harsh criticism of Trump’s handling of the negotiations during CNN’s “State of the Union” program. Booker argued Trump was being “played as a fool” in negotiations, saying: “He’s got us in a situation that’s worse than it was before, a more extreme regime. (The) Strait of Hormuz now is a leveraging point for them. This weak nation has put America in a stalemate.”

Tennessee Republican Senator Bill Hagerty expressed confidence that any agreement would include “strict” conditions preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. On Fox News’s “Sunday Briefing,” Hagerty said: “I think they’ll be very enforceable. And remember … President Trump has used military force to basically annihilate the economic, technological, and military capacity of the Iranian regime. They’re in a fundamentally different place.”

North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis, known for frequently criticizing Trump, questioned the administration’s apparent policy change on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Tillis noted: “We were told about 11 weeks ago, by (U.S. Defense Secretary Pete) Hegseth and the Department of Defense, that they had obliterated Iran’s defenses and it was just a matter of time before we had the nuclear material. Now we’re talking about a posture where we may accept the nuclear material remaining in Iran. How does that make sense at all?”

Democratic Party leaders are expected to trail Republicans by multiple seats in 2026 as both parties compete to redraw congressional district boundaries nationwide. While Democrats could close this gap by 2028, they must navigate complex legal obstacles that Republican officials don’t encounter.

The challenge stems from Democrats needing to work around restrictions — many they previously supported — that limit their ability to respond in kind to Republican redistricting efforts.

In states like Colorado, New Jersey, New York and Washington, independent redistricting commissions create district maps designed to avoid favoring either political party. Democratic officials would need voter approval to dismantle these widely supported commissions and replace their neutral maps with heavily partisan ones, matching Republican actions following President Donald Trump’s call last year for extensive redistricting in GOP-controlled states to help maintain his party’s House control.

Any procedural mistakes by Democrats could lead courts to overturn new maps. This occurred recently in Virginia when the state Supreme Court struck down voter-approved maps that would have created four additional competitive seats for Democrats. The court determined the Democratic-controlled legislature failed to follow proper procedures when placing the measure before voters.

“It’s going to be expensive, it’s going to be unpopular, and it’s going to be a challenge for them to do what they want,” said Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust.

Despite recent redistricting setbacks, Democrats remain positioned to capture House control this year. The most significant blow came when the conservative U.S. Supreme Court majority weakened a crucial Voting Rights Act provision, enabling Republicans to quickly eliminate at least three majority-Black House districts in the South currently held by Democrats.

Political strategists from both parties anticipate Democratic victories in November consistent with historical patterns when the incumbent president’s party faces voter dissatisfaction during midterm elections. During Trump’s initial midterm in 2018, Democrats secured 40 additional House seats.

However, achieving a House majority in 2028 appears significantly more challenging for Democrats.

Presidential election cycles typically produce closer results than midterm contests. Following the recent Supreme Court ruling, Republicans could easily eliminate five or more majority-minority Democratic districts next year in states where maps were already finalized for 2026. They could potentially gain four additional seats through redistricting in Indiana, where some state legislators who resisted last year were defeated in Republican primaries, and in Kentucky and Kansas, where Democratic governors who blocked Republican maps will reach term limits.

The mapping pressure intensifies for Democrats seeking to improve their 2028 House prospects, as the party also aims to reclaim the Senate and White House that year. Only with unified control could they attempt to pass federal legislation banning partisan gerrymandering that might eliminate what could become a lasting Republican advantage.

Following the 2030 census, House seats will shift to states experiencing rapid population growth, primarily those under Republican control. These states could gain up to 10 seats, largely from Democratic strongholds like California and New York.

“Looking at the next census makes me all the more stressed to ban partisan gerrymandering at the federal level,” said John Bisogano, executive director of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

Republicans encounter some legal challenges in the redistricting battle.

In Florida, their redrawn congressional map depends on the conservative-majority state Supreme Court overturning the state’s constitutional prohibition on partisan gerrymandering.

However, Democrats face significantly more barriers and must execute multiple complicated political strategies.

Only Illinois and Oregon offer Democrats opportunities to create additional competitive seats without major impediments.

Across Colorado, New York and New Jersey, Democrats could achieve nearly double-digit House seat gains, but only by successfully navigating constitutional changes.

In Maryland, Democrats who declined to redraw their map this year are working to place a constitutional amendment on November’s ballot that would authorize eliminating the state’s only Republican House seat in 2028.

Democrats point out that their voters have supported abandoning the reform approach they once preferred, allowing their party to match redistricting efforts by Trump and fellow Republicans. The biggest victory occurred in California, where a ballot measure adopting a new map to gain up to five seats passed decisively last year. Virginia’s map passed more narrowly, but Democrats there remain committed to implementing the 10-1 map in 2028.

In Washington state, Democrats’ only opportunity to revise the constitution and redraw maps requires winning a two-thirds legislative majority in November, a difficult task. Because Democrats expect strong November performance, they’re also hoping to capture state legislative seats that would give them mapping control in states like Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Devin Remiker has proposed new maps allowing Democrats to win up to six seats in a state where Republicans currently hold six of eight House districts. Such aggressive action is necessary, he argued, given Republican activities elsewhere.

“If we’ve learned anything, we’ve learned that when you know a knife fight is coming — bring a bazooka,” he said.

In other states, Democrats express confidence in voter support.

“People in New York are pretty fired up given what they’ve seen around the country,” said U.S. Rep. Joe Morelle, a New York Democrat who maintains close ties with the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, also from New York.

However, New York voters cannot join the redistricting battle until next year because the state constitution requires amendment through statewide voting to permit it. This can only occur after the Democratic-controlled Legislature votes twice across two years to place the question on the ballot.

Similarly, Colorado Democrats previously supported creating an independent commission to redraw district lines in their state. While many have reconsidered, they cannot act until voters remove the commission’s map this fall and authorize Democratic redistricting for 2028.

Their proposed initiative faces a state Supreme Court challenge. Even with ballot approval, it could encounter a competing Republican measure to redraw the map favoring conservative candidates.

“Republicans are stealing votes of Americans all across the country, and Colorado voters will say: ‘Hey, you can’t do that,’” said Curtis Hubbard, a spokesman for Democrats promoting Colorado redistricting.

Colorado represents the most prominent example of Democrats’ redistricting position reversal.

Republicans gained control of numerous state legislatures in the 2010 midterm election and used that power to redraw maps nationwide, providing them a U.S. House advantage. Democrats responded by supporting nonpartisan redistricting, a movement that peaked in 2018 when Colorado Democrats backed a measure establishing such a commission in their state.

Currently, both candidates seeking the party’s gubernatorial nomination support overriding the commission. Former Democratic President Barack Obama, who made redistricting reform a central platform element, has also changed his position, advocating for aggressive nationwide map redrawing.

Nicholas Stephanopolous, a Harvard law professor, said Democrats clearly view Trump’s redistricting push as an existential threat.

“I think they’re going to move heaven and earth to respond,” he said.

Speaking from the White House ballroom construction area, the president asked Americans dealing with high gas prices to remain patient while defending a project that opponents describe as self-serving.

“This is peanuts,” he stated on Tuesday, apparently referring to the economic harm caused by the Iran war. “I appreciate everybody putting up with it for a little while. It won’t be much longer.”

The remarks highlighted worries within his Republican Party that the wealthy president’s emphasis on the ballroom seems out of touch while Americans face challenges filling their gas tanks before November’s midterm elections.

A Reuters analysis of the president’s public statements reveals he has referenced the ballroom – through speeches, social media, or reporter interactions – no fewer than 40 times this year, with nine mentions in this month alone. In contrast, he brought it up 35 times throughout all of 2025.

He frequently begins promoting the ballroom unexpectedly, whether speaking with reporters aboard Air Force One, addressing Oval Office visitors, or posting on his Truth Social platform.

A White House official dismissed Democratic claims that the ballroom represents a self-serving project.

“This is about legacy, not vanity,” the official stated. “The president is deeply passionate about this and wants to get it done.”

While difficult to measure his economic discussions precisely, as fuel costs have climbed, he has consistently minimized the war’s economic consequences, urging patience while showing little recognition of Americans’ financial difficulties.

“I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation,” he remarked earlier this month in an impromptu comment about the war’s economic effects that Democrats quickly highlighted. “The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran, they can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

SOME REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS SAY BALLROOM IS A DISTRACTION

The Reuters analysis indicates that the ballroom, Washington Reflecting Pool reconstruction, and plans for a 250-foot Independence Arch in the capital occupy the thoughts of a president whose second term has focused heavily on legacy-building initiatives.

Even during crises and diplomatic meetings, the president has maintained the ballroom’s prominence. Hours after an apparent assassination attempt at a Washington hotel, he used the event to advocate for constructing one. Following his important meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, he posted on Truth Social that the visit strengthened his argument.

“China has a Ballroom, and so should the U.S.A.!” he wrote next to a photograph of himself and Xi outside Beijing’s massive Great Hall of the People.

In Republican-led focus groups, though, voters are voicing worries about the ballroom and the arch, a senior Republican campaign operative informed Reuters, asking for anonymity to discuss the topic.

“For voters, the message that is coming from the White House is Trump is focused on vanity projects and foreign policy, and those are things that voters don’t care about,” the operative stated.

Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming said during an interview that the attention directed toward the White House ballroom is “absolutely” consuming more time than appropriate.

“It would sure be nice if the public understood that the ballroom itself was private money,” Lummis commented.

The president claims he has collected $400 million from wealthy contributors and his personal funds for the ballroom. The Secret Service, though, has sought $1 billion in taxpayer funding for security improvements to the ballroom and White House complex, a proposal that lawmakers, including Republicans, have rejected.

Worried Republican legislators and senior White House staff have spent months encouraging the president to concentrate more on the economy as voters prepare for November, when Republicans anticipate a challenging battle to maintain Congressional control.

“Trump continues to talk about things that no one cares about,” stated a Republican strategist working to help Republicans keep Congressional control. The strategist requested anonymity to discuss the issue openly.

The president’s response to economic concerns involves repeatedly claiming victory over inflation, despite official statistics indicating otherwise. He has redirected economic uncertainty questions by highlighting stock market gains and billions in foreign investment.

A January White House prediction that the president would take weekly trips promoting Republican candidates and addressing economic issues has not materialized.

Following initial frequent weekly travel early this year promoting his economic achievements, he has mostly remained at the White House or his Florida weekend residence since beginning the Iran war on February 28. He has taken only a few domestic trips since then.

CHINA TRIP, ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT

As the president confronts multiple political and policy challenges – including Iran conflict, increasing fuel prices, and declining approval ratings – he has increasingly visited construction sites connected to his initiatives, using them to highlight progress and regain agenda control.

On Tuesday, he guided reporters through the ballroom construction area and enthusiastically outlined some planned security elements. A week prior, he traveled in his armored vehicle to examine Washington’s Reflecting Pool renovations – which he has discussed seven times this month alone.

Democrats attempting to challenge Republican Congressional dominance in November say the president’s legacy project focus provides optimism.

“I can’t imagine that at a time when people are trying to figure out how to pay for their groceries that are exorbitantly high thanks to Trump’s tariffs that they’re (Republicans) focused on a ballroom,” Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia told Reuters.

“Tone deaf is an understatement.”

With polling showing most Americans opposing the ballroom, the message seems to have reached Republicans. The $1 billion proposal was removed last week – temporarily at least – from a Senate spending bill in a significant defeat for the president.

WASHINGTON — Federal agents opened fire on an individual in the vicinity of the White House on Saturday, with an innocent bystander also wounded during the incident, according to a law enforcement source.

Both victims remain hospitalized in critical condition, the official confirmed while requesting anonymity since they lacked authorization to publicly discuss the ongoing investigation.

News reporters stationed at the White House during Saturday’s incident described hearing multiple rounds of gunfire and received instructions to take cover within the press briefing area.

The Secret Service acknowledged on X that they were “aware of reports of shots fired near 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW” — located one block from the White House — and were “working to corroborate the information with personnel on the ground.” The agency promised additional details would follow.

FBI Director Kash Patel posted on social media that law enforcement was responding to gunfire reports and stated he would “update the public as we’re able.”

President Donald Trump remained inside the White House during the shooting.

ABC News senior White House correspondent Selina Wang captured dramatic footage on X of the moment she heard what “sounded like dozens of gunshots” and took cover. Wang had been recording a routine social media video about Trump’s earlier Saturday comments regarding a potential Iran deal when the gunfire erupted. Her video shows her speaking briefly before her expression changes and she ducks down in the media tent positioned along the White House driveway where broadcasters conduct their reports. Wang’s footage had been shared thousands of times and viewed over 3 million times by Saturday evening.

The Metropolitan Police Department posted on X that the Secret Service was handling the scene and advised people to stay away from the area. This location is close to where a gunman attacked two West Virginia National Guard members last November.

U.S. Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, 20, succumbed to her injuries from that attack. Andrew Wolfe, then 24, sustained critical wounds. Rahmanullah Lakanwal faces charges in connection with that incident.

Saturday’s shooting occurred nearly a month following what authorities described as an assassination attempt against the president on April 25 during his attendance at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner at a Washington hotel. Cole Tomas Allen, of Torrance, California, recently pleaded not guilty to charges alleging he attempted to kill Trump and remains in federal detention.

After that incident, Secret Service agents shot a suspect who allegedly fired at officers near the Washington Monument, also in proximity to the White House. Michael Marx, 45, of Midland, Texas, was charged in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court related to the May 4 shooting. A teenage bystander sustained injuries during that encounter.

WASHINGTON — Federal authorities are investigating reports of gunfire that occurred close to the White House grounds on Saturday.

Media personnel present at the location on Saturday heard multiple gunshots and received instructions to take cover in the press briefing room. Secret Service agents prevented them from exiting the area.

No injuries were reported immediately, and details about what led to the incident remain unclear.

The Secret Service posted on X that they were “aware of reports of shots fired near 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW” — located one block away from the White House — and were “working to corroborate the information with personnel on the ground.”

FBI Director Kash Patel posted on social media that law enforcement was responding to the gunfire and stated he would “update the public as we’re able.”

President Donald Trump was at the White House when the shooting occurred.

The Metropolitan Police Department had not responded to information requests immediately.

This Saturday incident follows approximately one month after what authorities described as an assassination attempt against the president on April 25 during his attendance at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner at a Washington hotel. Cole Tomas Allen, from Torrance, California, entered a not guilty plea recently to charges alleging he tried to kill Trump and is being held in federal detention.

After that incident, Secret Service agents shot a individual they claimed had opened fire on officers close to the Washington Monument, which is also in the White House vicinity. Michael Marx, 45, from Midland, Texas, faces charges in a complaint submitted to U.S. District Court regarding the May 4 shooting incident. A teenage bystander sustained injuries during that event.

President Donald Trump announced Saturday that a peace agreement between the United States, Iran, and multiple Middle Eastern nations is mostly complete, though prominent Republican senators are expressing serious reservations about the potential deal.

Through a Truth Social message, President Trump revealed he held discussions from the Oval Office with officials from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain about “all things related to a Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to PEACE.”

“An Agreement has been largely negotiated, subject to finalization between the United States of America, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the various other Countries, as listed,” President Trump posted. He mentioned having a separate discussion with Netanyahu that “went very well.”

“Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly,” he stated, noting that “the Strait of Hormuz will be opened.”

Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham both voiced skepticism about the potential arrangement. “This combination of Iran being perceived as having the ability to terrorize the Strait in perpetuity and the ability the inflict massive damage to Gulf oil infrastructure is a major shift of the balance of power in the region and over time will be a nightmare for Israel,” Graham posted on X Saturday.

Wicker, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, indicated these negotiations could define President Trump’s presidential legacy and called on him to “finish what we started.”

In an earlier Saturday interview with Axios reporter Barak Ravid, President Trump estimated there was a “solid 50/50” probability that America would either restart military action against Iran or achieve what he characterized as a beneficial deal.

“I think one of two things will happen: either I hit them harder than they have ever been hit, or we are going to sign a deal that is good,” he stated.

The president emphasized that any final agreement must tackle uranium enrichment and Iran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium, though Axios indicated these nuclear concerns would likely not be immediately addressed in the current memorandum under consideration.

Israeli broadcaster N12 disclosed that Netanyahu called together his security cabinet due to worries that the proposed agreement could harm Israel’s interests.

According to reports, the arrangement would require Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in return for economic incentives, while future discussions would address Tehran’s nuclear activities and uranium reserves. Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities were reportedly excluded from these negotiations.

Aviation sector representatives are voicing serious concerns following Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin’s confirmation that he’s weighing the removal of federal border protection personnel from airport facilities in jurisdictions with sanctuary policies — a decision that could threaten international flight operations.

According to the U.S. Travel Association, Mullin verified his consideration of pulling CPB staff during discussions where industry representatives raised objections to various Trump administration proposals that might restrict travel operations. Both U.S. Travel and major airline companies swiftly criticized the concept, with Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy also expressing skepticism about the approach.

“U.S. Travel believes such a move would have devastating consequences for the travel industry and communities that depend on international visitation,” the organization stated Friday.

The Atlantic initially disclosed information about the meeting.

During Congressional testimony earlier this week, Duffy acknowledged his unfamiliarity with Mullin’s statements, expressing interest in understanding the full context and potentially questioning Mullin directly about his intentions. However, Duffy characterized politically-motivated travel restrictions as problematic policy, noting that political control eventually shifts and “you will all switch spots at one point — hopefully not too soon Mr. Chairman,” Duffy remarked.

“We have people from around the world and around the country that need to be able to fly into all different kinds of places. We shouldn’t shut down air travel in a state that doesn’t agree with our politics,” Duffy stated.

The level of administrative backing for this proposal remains uncertain, although President Donald Trump has previously threatened financial penalties for sanctuary jurisdictions.

While sanctuary policies lack precise definition, the terminology typically refers to restricted collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Federal courts have previously rejected funding withdrawal attempts from such jurisdictions.

During Trump’s initial presidency in 2017, judicial rulings blocked his attempts to reduce funding to these municipalities.

The specific cities and airports Mullin might target remain unclear, though the Justice Department released a catalog last year identifying three dozen states, municipalities and counties classified as sanctuary jurisdictions.

The Airlines for America organization immediately warned that the proposal would damage economic activity and create travel chaos.

“Reducing CBP staffing at major airports would have a devastating effect on the airline and tourism industries, causing a significant operational disruption to carriers, travelers and the flow of international cargo.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal officials confirm they have pulled news releases concerning criminal prosecutions tied to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot from the Department of Justice website, labeling the prosecution information as “partisan propaganda.”

The removal of documents detailing criminal charges, guilty verdicts and prison sentences represents another move by the Trump administration to fundamentally alter the narrative surrounding the Capitol attack, when hundreds of Republican President Donald Trump’s supporters breached the building to stop Congress from certifying his 2020 electoral defeat to Democrat Joe Biden.

During his first day returning to office in January 2025, Trump issued pardons, reduced prison terms or promised to drop charges for all of the more than 1,500 individuals facing criminal charges from the Capitol incident, including defendants found guilty of assaulting law enforcement with improvised weapons like flagpoles, a hockey stick and crutch.

This Monday, the Justice Department revealed plans for a $1.776 billion compensation fund designed to pay Trump supporters who believe they faced unfair investigation and prosecution. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has not dismissed the possibility that violent rioters with convictions could receive compensation, sparking anger from both parties in Congress.

Following a reporter’s Friday observation on social media platform X that the Justice Department was “quietly” taking down website news releases connected to the January 6th incident, including information about a Texas man who admitted guilt to assault charges and separately faced state charges for soliciting a minor, the department replied through its “rapid response” account that nothing was being done “quietly.”

“We are proud to reverse the DOJ’s weaponization under the Biden administration. We will do everything in our power to make whole those who were persecuted for political purposes,” the post said. “This includes stripping DOJ’s website of partisan propaganda.”

The deleted releases included those covering seditious conspiracy prosecutions of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers members, both far-right extremist organizations. Last month, the Justice Department filed an unopposed request with a federal appeals court to overturn those seditious conspiracy guilty verdicts, which the court approved Thursday. On Friday, the department moved to throw out the cases against these group members.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A congressman returned to his Southern California district last Fourth of July to hear troubling accounts from his community as federal immigration enforcement operations moved through neighborhoods, with one resident telling him they had begun carrying their passport to prove their legal right to remain in the United States.

Rep. Mark Takano, whose American-born parents were both detained as toddlers along with their families during the forced removal of Japanese Americans in World War II, found himself drawing connections between that dark period in American history and current events.

“I do feel like there’s a similarity of circumstance of my own 2-year-old father and my 1-year-old mother being labeled as enemy aliens and they’re considered a danger to national security,” he told The Associated Press in an interview.

“They’re put into these incarceration camps,” he said. “Similar arguments have been made by this administration — that immigrants pose a grave danger to our country and it’s for the security of our country that we’re doing this.”

President Donald Trump’s campaign promise of the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history is at an inflection point. Americans are seeing what it looks like to round up, detain and deport thousands of people, particularly in the aftermath of the deaths this year of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, U.S. citizens protesting the actions in Minneapolis.

The White House changed the leadership at the Department of Homeland Security as it reframes its approach. New Secretary Markwayne Mullin promised to keep the department off the front pages.

But Trump is also under mounting pressure from conservative groups not to let up on the goal of deporting 1 million people a year. The president’s Republican allies in Congress are fueling the immigration and deportation actions with billions of dollars in special funds.

Takano, the ranking Democrat on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, has drawn from his own family history — and the country’s eventual redress to Japanese Americans who were detained — to challenge Trump’s approach.

“We look back on that era of history as a shameful one, as a time when our political leaders failed the Constitution, failed the American people,” he said.

A former high school history teacher before being elected to Congress in 2012, Takano grew up in Southern California and came to understand the family stories.

His grandfather Isao Takano arrived in the U.S. from Hiroshima and married Kazue Takahashi, a U.S.-born citizen. Together they settled in Bellevue, Washington, and launched a business growing tomatoes, strawberries and chrysanthemums for the marketplace in Seattle.

When the U.S. entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, they were among some 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry, immigrants and those born in the U.S., forcibly relocated.

His father, William, was 2 years old when his family was sent in 1942 to the incarceration camp at Tule Lake in California. His mother, Nancy Tsugiye Sakamoto, born in California to American-born parents, was a year old when she was relocated to the detention facility in Heart Mountain, Wyoming.

Then, as now, he said, people are being swept up in the anti-immigrant detentions.

“Will Americans generations from now visit Alligator Alcatraz and think to themselves, How could our government do this?” Takano said during a House floor speech, referring to the Trump-era immigration detention facility in Florida.

“These future generations of Americans will look to us, the Congress, to see what we did to try to stop it.”

Takano remembers his father taking him to see the land the family once owned. He learned about his great uncles who served in the Army’s 442nd Regimental Combat Team of Japanese American soldiers; one was killed in action in Italy. He recalls his own father later collected donations for the national redress campaign.

In 1988 Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act, which sought to apologize for the “grave injustice” that had been done and provide $20,000 to each person detained. Republican President Ronald Reagan signed it into law.

Takano’s parents were among those who received a letter of apology from the federal government, he said, and a payment.

Talks are underway among some in Congress, he said, for a similar redress to the people who have had their car windows smashed in, their homes raided and livelihoods upended as part of Trump’s immigration enforcement operations.

“Remarkably the country did come to realize the mistake,” he said. “I believe we’re living through one of those eras of mistakes and I believe we can come out of this moment stronger.”

HARRISBURG, Pa. — State Representative Chris Rabb faced steep odds in his bid for the Democratic congressional nomination in Philadelphia, with the political establishment firmly aligned against him.

The mayor and Philadelphia’s Democratic Party organization had thrown their support behind a different candidate in this week’s primary contest. Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation also backed another contender. One of Rabb’s opponents had millions in financial backing, while another benefited from extensive voter mobilization efforts led by powerful local construction trade unions.

Despite these challenges, Rabb secured victory by a commanding 15-point margin over his nearest rival in Tuesday’s contest. The state lawmaker appears headed to Congress since no Republican candidate filed for the GOP nomination.

A coalition of progressive organizations powered Rabb’s campaign, with his strategy focusing partly on criticizing his own party for prioritizing wealthy contributors over ordinary voters. He attributed his success to a grassroots coalition inspired by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, concerned about Republican President Donald Trump, and seeking more responsive governance.

“That was at the heart of why I was running and that is what I built my campaign around and that, I believe, is a chord we struck in this electorate that showed up and came out like gangbusters,” Rabb said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Progressive activists view Rabb’s triumph as among their most significant victories this year and another indication that Democratic voters perceive party leadership as ineffective against Trump. Progressive candidates are also seeking House positions in New York, California and Michigan, either challenging sitting Democratic lawmakers or targeting vulnerable Republicans.

The 55-year-old Rabb describes himself as a Democratic socialist and “proud troublemaker” who consistently championed progressive legislation during his five terms in the state House. His supporters believe voters delivered a clear message this week.

“They want someone who knows what they stand for and is ready to fight, whether it’s fighting Donald Trump now or fighting an economy and political system rigged for billionaires in years ahead,” said Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

The success of progressive candidates in midterm contests has raised concerns among moderate Democrats that far-left nominees might alienate centrist voters and waste a politically favorable opportunity to defeat Republicans, regain congressional control, and obstruct Trump’s agenda during his final two years in office.

Mike Mikus, a Pittsburgh-based Democratic strategist, said progressives could pose challenges for the Democratic Party in the future, but not during this election cycle.

“Regardless of who we nominate, gas prices are still too high, grocery prices are too high and people generally think the economy is not in a good place,” Mikus said. “And voters will vote for change.”

The Working Families Party served as perhaps Rabb’s most significant backer, an organization that argues both Democratic and Republican establishments have compromised with powerful interests. The group has supported several congressional members, with Analilia Mejía becoming their latest success after winning a New Jersey special election on April 16.

Rabb remains uncertain about what awaits him in Washington. “Will we have a razor-thin majority? Will we be in a razor-thin minority?”

He views Congress as an institution where most members avoid bold action due to financial influences in politics. During his victory address, Rabb displayed the passion that progressive supporters say resonated with voters.

“I have been critiqued along this campaign for being too radical, too bold,” Rabb told the crowd. “They ain’t seen nothing yet.”

Rabb’s policy positions on many campaign topics did not differ substantially from his opponents’, including supporting Trump’s impeachment, eliminating U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, implementing a data center moratorium, and advocating for “Medicare for All.”

He distinguished himself by emphasizing support for government-operated grocery stores to eliminate “food deserts” and comprehensive minimum wage legislation that would end lower tipped wages and include independent contractors like gig workers.

Most significantly, Rabb mounted fierce criticism of establishment politics, including within his own party.

He argued that people are frustrated with insider politicians and big-money politics, leading to poor voter participation even with Trump in office and strong opposition to “MAGA extremism and corporate greed,” referencing Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement.

“We can learn lessons from this victory because, if establishment politics was as effective and productive as people would have us think, then I would have been blown out of the water,” Rabb said.

State senator and former state party chair Sharif Street placed second on Tuesday. U.S. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker supported his campaign, while building trades unions contributed over $600,000.

Dr. Ala Stanford finished third, receiving endorsement from retiring incumbent Dwight Evans and $3.5 million in expenditures from 314 Action, a left-leaning political action committee focused on electing scientists to Congress.

The state’s leading Democrat, Gov. Josh Shapiro, remained neutral in the race but called to congratulate Rabb following the election.

Allied progressive organizations provided at least $1.8 million in spending support for Rabb, according to federal campaign records. U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., campaigned for him four days before the primary.

Supporters celebrated his victory over the city party’s “machine.”

“The fact that Chris was able to win in machine territory is significant and should send a shock wave to the Democratic establishment that base voters are upset and want transformational change,” said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, which was founded by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

While progressive organizations are gaining influence in Philadelphia, some Democrats noted that Rabb won just 45% of votes, suggesting a unified establishment candidate might have succeeded. Others pointed to low turnout, with fewer than one-third of registered Democrats participating.

“Momentum, the vibes, how people feel about a candidate are going to make a difference,” said Mustafa Rashed, a Democratic political consultant in Philadelphia.

Rabb revealed he nearly abandoned the race and considered withdrawing after discovering his campaign treasurer had stolen funds.

The sense of betrayal, combined with being financially outmatched by rivals, made him question whether his candidacy could survive.

“There was a lot of internal talk about what is the path forward for me,” Rabb said. “I had to dig down and just reaffirm that I’m walking in my purpose and this is exactly what I’m supposed to be doing, irrespective of the adversities.”

The United States housing market is grappling with a pair of significant challenges – insufficient inventory of available properties and unaffordable pricing on existing homes. Federal lawmakers believe their newest proposed legislation could provide relief for both issues.

WASHINGTON, May 23 – Following the Trump administration’s intensified pressure on Communist-controlled Cuba, which came after military forces removed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January, analysts are examining why the Cuban situation may unfold differently despite Caracas having been a major ally of the island nation’s government.

LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION QUESTIONS

When U.S. forces captured Maduro during a swift operation on January 3, then-Vice President Delcy Rodriguez assumed control and has remained as acting president. However, Cuba presents a different scenario with no clear deputy to Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel or former President Raúl Castro, the 94-year-old ex-leader whom the U.S. indicted this week as part of efforts to intensify pressure on Havana.

Orlando Pérez, a specialist in U.S.-Latin America relations at the University of North Texas in Dallas, explained the challenge: “The security apparatus in Cuba has dismantled, systematically dismantled, every alternative or potentially alternative power source.”

While Venezuela has a prominent opposition figure in Nobel laureate María Corina Machado, who won 2024 elections but was prevented from assuming power and hopes to return for free elections this year, Cuba lacks a comparable leader.

Though Raúl Rodriguez Castro, the former president’s grandson, recently met with CIA Director John Ratcliffe during an unusual visit by a U.S. intelligence chief to Havana – sparking speculation about potential cooperation with Washington – the younger Castro holds no official government role and isn’t anticipated to turn against his family. He participated in a Friday rally in Havana protesting his grandfather’s indictment.

ANALYZING ADVANTAGES AND DANGERS

Cuba has remained a U.S. adversary since Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution. Trump enjoys strong backing from hardline Cuban-Americans in Florida who have long advocated for U.S.-supported regime change, and the Republican president has expressed clear desires for transformation in their native country.

Historically viewed as a threatening Soviet ally just 90 miles from Florida, and more recently as a potential base for Chinese influence in the Western Hemisphere, Cuba’s position has shifted as Russia’s focus moved elsewhere after the Soviet bloc’s collapse, while economic difficulties have reduced its capacity to challenge the U.S.

Analysts warn that Cuban instability could trigger a migration emergency, as citizens already facing widespread power outages due to the U.S. blockade might choose to escape the island during conflict or disorder.

Cuba’s armed forces demonstrate greater ideological commitment and unity than Venezuela’s military and would likely mount stronger resistance. While dozens of Cuban agents died in Venezuela during January while protecting Maduro, survivors gained valuable intelligence about U.S. operational methods.

Cuba is also considered more sophisticated in surveillance and intelligence capabilities, particularly after years of collaboration with Russia and China.

POTENTIAL U.S. GAINS FROM CUBA

Venezuela possesses significant natural resources, with U.S. corporations already positioning themselves to extract oil from the South American nation, which has experienced increased exports.

Cuba offers no comparable resources. Its government-controlled tourism sector lagged behind other Caribbean locations in cost and service quality even before this year’s sharp decline, worsened by shortages connected to Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy, the U.S. blockade, and tariff threats against nations supplying it with fuel.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a vocal Cuba critic who also serves as national security adviser, is viewed as the driving force behind the Trump administration’s Cuban strategy.

A Florida-born son of Cuban immigrants who has previously sought the presidency and is expected to run again, Rubio could benefit politically from major Cuban changes, but failure carries significant risks as the U.S. confronts massive budget shortfalls while conducting a costly Iran campaign estimated at billions daily.

LEGAL COMPLICATIONS

The 1996 Helms-Burton Act restricts Washington’s ability to alter Cuban relations, connecting embargo removal to specific political changes including establishing a democratically elected government.

Trump modified U.S.-Venezuela business relationships by ousting Maduro while maintaining the existing government structure without announcing plans for free elections.

Regarding Cuba, he cannot legally proceed without dramatic cooperation from Cuban officials, who have refused to collaborate thus far.

Cuba’s situation proves more complex due to its economy’s lack of private enterprise, dominated instead by Gaesa, a military conglomerate under U.S. sanctions controlling the island’s premier hotels, main port, leading commercial bank, and extensive networks of supermarkets, gas stations, and remittance operations.

Washington justified the Venezuela intervention by citing Maduro’s government involvement in “narcoterrorism.” Cuban officials haven’t faced similar accusations, with their government claiming cooperation with the U.S. in anti-drug efforts.

WASHINGTON, May 23 – A major rift has emerged between President Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans over his proposed $1.776 billion compensation fund for individuals he describes as victims of government “weaponization,” creating a heated standoff just months ahead of the midterm elections.

The Senate put a halt to deliberations on Thursday regarding a $72 billion immigration enforcement spending package after numerous GOP senators insisted the controversial fund should either be eliminated entirely or face strict oversight requirements.

Democratic lawmakers have similarly vowed to target the fund through the immigration legislation.

The previous day, Senate Majority Leader John Thune prevented $1 billion in federal money from going toward an elaborate White House ballroom that Trump has started constructing, stating he lacked sufficient Republican support.

Trump responded forcefully on Friday.

“I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE!” the president wrote on his social media platform.

This power struggle between Trump and members of his own party, fueled by recent primary wins of Trump-backed candidates defeating incumbent legislators, may escalate when Congress reconvenes next month and could impact November’s midterm races.

“The American people are going to reject this out of hand,” Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina said of the anti-weaponization fund, whose beneficiaries could include those convicted in connection with the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Though many GOP senators remained unusually quiet after Thursday’s spending bill discussion, Tillis and others made clear how politically damaging the president’s requests had become.

“(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,” Tillis, who is not running for reelection, said in a Thursday interview with Spectrum News.

CONGRESSIONAL MANEUVERING OVER COMPENSATION FUND

Republican Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, facing a competitive reelection race this fall, joined forces with Democratic Representative Tom Suozzi of New York on a bill to block any payments from the fund.

Retiring Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska described both the ballroom and anti-weaponization funds within the immigration spending package as “poison pills” for House Republicans in difficult reelection contests.

Given Republicans’ narrow control in both congressional chambers, just a small number of dissenting lawmakers could sink Trump’s proposals.

However, there’s widespread doubt that congressional Republicans, who have remained faithful to the president on issues ranging from trade policy to budget cuts to military action, are prepared to break away.

“We’ve heard this talk for 10 years now of rebellion and cracks in the coalition. It has never happened,” said Doug Heye, a longtime Republican strategist.

He noted Republicans are “constantly capitulating” on Trump’s priorities, suggesting any uprising would be “light years” away.

Several Trump supporters in Congress, including Republican Representatives Abraham Hamadeh of Arizona and John Rose of Tennessee, have rallied to his defense.

“Not a single congressional Republican was elected to oppose President Trump,” Hamadeh posted on X, adding: “Yet an insurgency is already brewing” in the Senate. “STOP slamming the brakes on the America First agenda.”

Peter Ticktin, an attorney representing more than 400 January 6 defendants, expressed confidence his clients will receive compensation despite congressional resistance.

“They’re fools if they think this is going to work,” Ticktin said of Senate Republicans who oppose the fund. “It’s still going to go through, and those opposing the fund will suffer in future elections.”

DEMOCRATS PLAN TO FORCE CHALLENGING VOTES

Democratic lawmakers, though holding minority status in both chambers, are capitalizing on what they view as the president’s politically insensitive proposals.

They’ve highlighted the contrast between struggling American consumers dealing with inflation and Trump’s expensive ballroom project and potential large government payments to January 6 participants or other associates.

“Is it possible on May 21, 2026, Republicans finally found an ethical bridge too far?” Senator Dick Durbin, the second-highest-ranking member of the Democrats’ Senate leadership, said at a Thursday press conference.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer on Thursday described Republicans as experiencing a “meltdown” over the ballroom and what Democrats label a Trump “slush fund.”

One option for congressional Republicans when they return from break on June 1 involves finding a compromise position.

An anonymous source with knowledge of the negotiations mentioned discussions about potential fund restrictions, including standards for commission oversight members or mandating judicial review.

At minimum, Democrats will likely attempt to force opponents into politically challenging votes on spending bill amendments.

Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware told reporters this week he had prepared 13 such amendments. One would prevent payments to January 6 participants who attacked Capitol law enforcement, while others would ban taxpayer funding for payments and require public disclosure of all payments if the fund survives, according to a spokesperson for the senator.

GOP-led states are accelerating efforts to redraw congressional boundaries in their favor before November’s midterm elections, following a recent Supreme Court ruling that reduced minority voting protections under federal law.

Within just a few weeks, revised U.S. House boundaries have already become law in Tennessee and Alabama, while similar measures have passed through at least one legislative chamber in Louisiana and South Carolina. However, legal and legislative obstacles still exist before these new maps can take effect for November voting.

Congressional boundaries are normally redrawn following each decade’s census. However, President Donald Trump has encouraged Republican-controlled states to pursue redistricting now as they work to maintain the GOP’s slim House majority amid challenging political conditions. Historically, a sitting president’s party tends to lose congressional seats during midterm elections, and Trump’s approval numbers remain underwater.

The aggressive redistricting strategy could yield significant gains for Republicans. Since Trump initially pushed Texas to revise its voting boundaries last year, GOP strategists believe they could secure up to 15 additional seats through new House districts across seven states. Democratic efforts have been more limited, targeting approximately six seats through new boundaries in two states.

Here’s an overview of the latest redistricting developments:

Republican Gov. Henry McMaster convened a special legislative session to address congressional redistricting. The GOP-controlled House approved a proposal early Wednesday designed to boost the party’s prospects of capturing the state’s sole Democratic-held seat.

Senate members are scheduled to convene Saturday — marking their third consecutive day of meetings — to review the redistricting proposal. However, approval remains uncertain.

Democratic lawmakers oppose the plan, while some Republicans also express concerns. Several GOP senators worry that their strategy to target the district represented by Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn might backfire by distributing too many Democratic voters into Republican-held areas, potentially making those seats vulnerable.

South Carolina’s primary elections are scheduled for June 9. The proposed legislation would establish a new congressional primary date in August.

The Supreme Court invalidated Louisiana’s congressional map, which featured two majority-Black districts held by Democrats, ruling it constituted illegal racial gerrymandering. The state House is expected to consider a revised map next week that would substantially alter one of those districts while improving Republican chances of winning it.

While Republicans controlling the state Legislature agree on the general framework of the new map, the House and Senate have different approaches for dividing certain areas, including decisions about which parishes remain intact versus those that get divided.

A House committee modified a map that the Senate had previously approved. Should the chambers pass different versions, a joint legislative committee could attempt to broker a compromise before the session concludes June 1.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry delayed Louisiana’s May 16 congressional primary until later in the summer to provide time for redistricting completion.

A federal court considered arguments Friday regarding a request to prevent Alabama from implementing congressional districts that could help Republicans secure an additional seat in the midterm elections. This represents the most recent development in an ongoing legal battle.

Republican state legislators approved a map in 2023 featuring one majority-Black district. The court had previously blocked that map and mandated a replacement that resulted in Democrats winning two seats where Black residents form a majority or near-majority.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court recently reversed that directive and instructed the lower court to reconsider the case based on the Louisiana ruling.

Legal representatives from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU, advocating for Black voters, want a three-judge panel to block the state from implementing the 2023 map. They argue a preliminary injunction is justified because the Louisiana decision shouldn’t impact a separate determination that Alabama’s map intentionally discriminated against Black voters.

Alabama conducted its primary elections on May 19. However, new congressional primaries are set for August for districts that differ under the 2023 map.

A state court panel considered arguments Thursday in another NAACP legal challenge aimed at overturning Tennessee’s new congressional map, which divides a Memphis-area, majority-Black district represented by a Democrat. The revised map could enhance Republican opportunities to claim all nine of the state’s seats.

The legal challenge argues that the General Assembly incorporated elements in the redistricting legislation that weren’t specifically authorized or required under a proclamation by Republican Gov. Bill Lee establishing the special session agenda. These include a provision eliminating a state law that bars mid-decade redistricting.

If lawmakers exceeded their constitutional authority, the lawsuit maintains that the new map cannot be implemented.

State senator David Brock Smith secured victory in Oregon’s Republican U.S. Senate primary on Friday, marking the final major race decided from the state’s May 19 primary election.

Smith prevailed over six other Republican candidates and will now challenge Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley, the incumbent, in the November general election.

“This campaign is about putting Oregon first. Fighting for affordable living, safer communities, good-paying jobs, responsible government, and protecting the values that make our beloved state strong,” Smith declared in a statement. “This election is bigger than politics. It’s about restoring hope, opportunity, and accountability for every Oregonian.”

Merkley, who first took office in 2008, is considered to hold a relatively secure position given that Oregon voters haven’t chosen a Republican for U.S. Senate since 2002. His campaign team had not provided a response by Friday evening regarding Smith’s primary victory.

This outcome follows other major primary decisions announced on election night, including a gas tax ballot question and the Republican gubernatorial primary that established a November showdown for the state’s highest office.

Voters decisively defeated a ballot measure proposing to increase the state gas tax by 6 cents to 46 cents per gallon. The Democratic-controlled Legislature had approved this controversial gas tax hike along with additional fees last year to fund road repairs and address transportation budget shortfalls. Republicans subsequently organized a referendum drive to place the issue before voters for final determination.

Republican leaders celebrated the gas tax measure’s defeat after voters soundly rejected it. Democratic officials largely stayed quiet and didn’t mount organized support efforts as the Iran war drove gas prices higher. Several party members had predicted voter rejection of the measure leading up to the primary.

For governor, Republican state Sen. Christine Drazan won her party’s nomination from a crowded field of 14 contenders. She defeated rivals including another GOP legislator who had championed the gas tax referendum effort and a former NBA player.

Drazan’s win creates a repeat matchup with Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek, who secured her party’s nomination while seeking another term. In 2022, Drazan fell short against Kotek by more than 3 percentage points in a three-candidate race that featured an independent contender.

Kotek won her initial gubernatorial term that year following legislative service that included a record tenure as Oregon’s House speaker. She has clashed with the Trump administration, which attempted unsuccessfully to send National Guard troops to Portland last fall, citing protection of federal facilities and staff after demonstrations at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building.

Kotek has also committed to addressing homelessness, mental health challenges, and educational concerns. However, despite approving funding and initiatives targeting these problems, the state continues experiencing increased homelessness and declining student achievement scores that remain below pre-pandemic benchmarks.

Drazan will probably focus on these challenges while confronting difficult odds: Oregon voters haven’t chosen a Republican governor in more than four decades.

In Oregon’s single competitive U.S. House race, Democratic incumbent Rep. Janelle Bynum secured her primary victory. County commissioner Patti Adair claimed the Republican nomination in that district and will attempt to reclaim the seat for the GOP. Republicans had flipped this seat in 2022 for the first time in many years before Bynum won it back for Democrats.

The primary immigration courthouse in San Francisco has permanently shut its doors, leaving no asylum seekers awaiting decisions and no attorneys presenting cases in what was once a bustling legal venue.

When President Donald Trump began his current term, the facility employed 21 immigration judges. By its closure on May 1, only two remained after the others were terminated, chose retirement, or stepped down during the White House’s systematic removal of federal immigration judges.

This shutdown represents another example of the widespread disruption affecting immigration courts nationwide as the current administration seeks methods to process its enormous backlog of 3.8 million asylum cases while maximizing deportations.

Rejection rates for asylum requests have increased dramatically following the dismissal of nearly 100 judges deemed too lenient, with hundreds of military attorneys approved to take their places. Immigrants have faced arrest upon arriving at courthouses or government facilities for scheduled hearings.

While this national transformation continues, San Francisco becomes the first major metropolitan area to lose its primary immigration court, creating disorder and breakdown in an area historically welcoming to those seeking asylum. The two remaining judges will operate from a different federal facility in the city but will function as part of an immigration court located across the bay.

According to court personnel, this welcoming reputation may have contributed to its closure.

“It was a vibrant legal scene and so I think if you were looking to target a court you would have to look at what San Francisco stands for,” said Jeremiah Johnson, an immigration judge in the city until he was fired in November. He is now executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

The majority of the court’s 117,000 immigration cases have been relocated to a facility in Concord, approximately 30 miles away, which opened two years ago to assist with San Francisco’s case backlog. However, disruption has also affected that location. A courthouse that began 2025 with 11 judges now operates with five following multiple terminations. It already handled 60,000 cases before absorbing the San Francisco transfers.

San Francisco’s immigration court, which ranked third nationally in asylum case volume, was historically regarded as among the most favorable to asylum seekers. Between 2019 and 2024, nearly 75% of applicants obtained some form of protection, compared to 43% nationally, based on information gathered by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonprofit data research center based at Syracuse University.

This success rate stemmed partly from San Francisco’s extensive network of immigrant advocacy groups and pro bono or affordable legal services, resulting in one of the nation’s highest rates of legal representation for immigrants.

The Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Department of Justice division overseeing immigration courts, announced in March its intention to close the San Francisco courthouse in 2027 as a cost-reduction strategy and transfer cases to Concord. However, the closure occurred ahead of schedule after almost all San Francisco judges departed or were dismissed. The Executive Office offered no comprehensive explanation for the changes, stating only that it chose not to renew the court’s lease and does not discuss personnel issues.

Security measures at the Concord courthouse are extensive, possibly due to the new case influx. Armed security personnel question each visitor about weapons or explosives and observe as everyone powers down their mobile devices. Even coffee is prohibited inside. Only water is permitted, and only in clear containers.

Judah Lakin, an immigration attorney based in Oakland who also teaches at UC Berkeley School of Law, said the closure of the San Francisco court has made cases more time consuming since it’s harder for his clients, who often travel from hours away, to reach Concord on public transportation.

One recent 10-minute hearing in Concord took him more than two hours of travel, he said.

Beyond logistical challenges, Lakin explained that the turmoil in immigration courts under the Trump administration has created a tense courtroom environment. Mass terminations have resulted in last-minute hearing cancellations, cases have been rescheduled with minimal notice, and clients often remain in extended legal uncertainty, making them susceptible to deportation.

One of his clients, he said, was provisionally granted asylum by a judge, who was then fired before signing the decision. The case was transferred to a second judge, who was also fired. Now on their third judge, his client is still waiting.

“The ground is constantly shifting underneath your feet, whether it’s judges being fired and hearings getting canceled, whether it’s your clients getting arrested, whether it’s getting denials on things that used to be standard and routine,” Lakin said.

“I think that’s on purpose. That’s by design. It’s part of the strategy,” he added.

San Francisco’s immigration court was among the nation’s first to employ judges with non-prosecutorial backgrounds, with many having prior experience assisting immigrants at nonprofits or representing them in legal proceedings.

Witnessing the court’s closure is “heartbreaking,” said Dana Leigh Marks, a former San Francisco immigration judge who retired in 2021 after 35 years on the bench and who was among the first judges in the nation to be hired from private practice.

She views the Trump administration’s decision to close the largest immigration court in Northern California as part of an effort to undermine due process and eventually dismantle the path to asylum.

“It’s all a part of big ways and little ways that the Trump administration is trying to get non-citizens out of the country,” she said.

Johnson, the dismissed San Francisco judge, received his appointment during the first Trump administration. He believes he became a target because he approved asylum in 89% of his cases.

“You don’t fire judges if you disagree with the way they’re handling a case, that’s not how courts work. If you disagree, you appeal that decision,” he said.

Johnson, who is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, defended his judicial record, pointing out that over eight years, only about 10 of his cases were appealed by the Department of Homeland Security, and very few were sent back for further hearings by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Unlike federal courts, where there are strict rules of procedure and judges have lifetime tenure, the Justice Department runs immigration courts, and the attorney general can fire the judges with fewer constraints.

There were 754 immigration judges across the country at the start of Trump’s second term. Now, there are about 600, including some temporary judges, according to data collected by the judges’ union. Widespread courthouse arrests of immigrants have caused hundreds of people not to even show up for hearings, leading to deportation orders in absentia.

Nidaa Pervaiz came to the Concord court on a recent day to represent a client from Nepal. She prefers the new courthouse in some ways, since it’s closer to her home.

But, she said, she and her clients are already feeling the impact of the changes. Fewer judges leads to fewer hearings. That means more delays for her clients, whose paperwork can expire even before they can appear before a judge.

“Their whole lives are at stake, and they are coming to make a plea for their future” she said.

NEW YORK (AP) — A Manhattan federal judge dismissed author Michael Wolff’s legal case against first lady Melania Trump on Friday, describing his “twisted” effort to stop her potential $1 billion lawsuit over his comments linking her to Jeffrey Epstein as contrary to how “federal courts operate.”

Federal Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil criticized both parties for engaging in an “unacceptable degree of strategic maneuvering” and declared she “refuses to supervise a poorly presented quarrel.”

Vyskocil, a President Donald Trump appointee, acknowledged that Wolff and the first lady “face a legitimate legal conflict,” but emphasized “their dispute must follow standard legal processes like any other case.”

The author initiated legal proceedings against Melania Trump in October following correspondence from her attorney, Alejandro Brito, warning that she would have “no choice” but to pursue litigation unless he withdrew comments that allegedly inflicted “severe damage to her reputation and finances.”

Initially filed in New York state court, Brito successfully moved the case to federal jurisdiction. In her 45-page ruling, Vyskocil determined that although federal court maintains authority over the matter, she chose not to exercise it and “dismisses this case to be litigated like any other.”

Attempts to reach representatives for the first lady’s office, Brito, and Wolff’s legal counsel were unsuccessful.

During an April White House appearance, Melania Trump publicly rejected any connection to Epstein, the wealthy financier and registered sex offender who died by suicide in jail during August 2019 while facing sex trafficking allegations.

Speaking from prepared text, the first lady announced she and her legal team were challenging “false and groundless accusations” suggesting connections to Epstein.

“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” Melania Trump said. “The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.”

Wolff’s legal filing claimed the Trumps “routinely threaten critics” with expensive litigation “to suppress opposition speech, intimidate detractors broadly, and secure unwarranted financial settlements and North Korean style confessions and apologies.”

He alleged these intimidation tactics were “intended to establish nationwide fear preventing citizens from freely exercising First Amendment protections.”

The author has written twelve books, including four bestselling works focused on the president.

According to his lawsuit, Melania Trump’s legal threats concerned remarks he made to The Daily Beast and in three online videos. Wolff argued some statements were partial quotes removed from proper context.

Additional comments, his legal team argued, constituted protected expression. The characterization of the Trumps’ relationship as a “sham marriage, trophy marriage” represented a “reasonable and warranted” opinion, according to the filing.

The lawsuit emphasized that Wolff never alleged Melania Trump participated in Epstein’s criminal activities.

Following Brito’s correspondence in July 2025, The Daily Beast withdrew an article headlined “Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author,” which featured Wolff’s interview.

Wolff’s lawsuit clarified his remarks addressed the first lady’s “participation” in managing the situation “privately” within the White House — not suggesting involvement in Epstein’s offenses.

Other statements Wolff defended as accurate included claims about Melania Trump encountering Donald Trump within Epstein’s social network, and allegations that Donald Trump pursued relationships with associates’ spouses and initially became intimate with Melania Trump aboard Epstein’s aircraft.

WASHINGTON — Foreign nationals currently in the United States seeking permanent residency will be required to return to their home countries to complete their green card applications, according to a Friday announcement from the Trump administration that caught immigration advocates and attorneys off guard.

The policy reverses more than 50 years of established practice that allowed foreign nationals with legal status to pursue and finalize their permanent residence applications while remaining in the United States. This included spouses of American citizens, work and student visa holders, refugees, and asylum seekers.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services stated that temporary foreign nationals wanting to become lawful permanent residents must go back to their home countries to submit applications, unless “extraordinary circumstances” exist. USCIS officers will determine if applicants qualify for such exceptions.

“Nonimmigrants, like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas, come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose. Our system is designed for them to leave when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the Green Card process,” the agency stated.

The move represents another effort by the Trump administration to make legal immigration more challenging for foreigners currently in America and those seeking to enter.

“The goal of this policy is very explicit. Senior officials in this administration have said over and over that they want fewer people to get permanent residency because permanent residency is a path to citizenship and they want to block that path for as many people as possible,” said Doug Rand, a former senior advisor at USCIS during the Biden administration, who added that about 600,000 people already in the U.S. apply each year for a green card.

The agency has not specified when the policy takes effect, whether applicants must stay abroad throughout the entire process, or how it affects pending green card applications.

USCIS told the Associated Press via email that individuals providing an “economic benefit” or serving the “national interest” might be permitted to remain in the U.S., while others would need to apply from overseas.

This policy addition follows other administration measures restricting entry from numerous countries. Some nations face complete travel prohibitions, while others experience visa processing delays. Legal experts warn that requiring people from restricted countries to return home for green card applications could permanently prevent their return.

“If families are told that the non-citizen family member must return to his or her country of origin to process their immigrant visa, but immigrant visas are not being processed there, it’s a Catch-22. These policies will effectively create an indefinite separation of families,” wrote World Relief, a humanitarian and refugee resettlement organization.

USCIS characterized the modification as restoring “the original intent of the law” and eliminating a “loophole.”

However, immigration attorneys and advocacy organizations objected, arguing that status adjustment within the U.S. has been standard procedure for many groups, and numerous individuals cannot safely return home or lack embassy access for applications. The U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan, for instance, has remained closed since the American withdrawal in August 2021.

“USCIS is trying to upend decades of processing of adjustment of status,” said Shev Dalal-Dheini, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “This all applies very broadly to anyone seeking a green card”.

Those affected could include spouses of American citizens, immigrants with humanitarian protections seeking green cards, work visa holders including physicians and other professionals, plus student and religious visa recipients, the attorney explained.

Dalal-Dheini noted that visa appointment wait times at certain U.S. consulates overseas can exceed one year.

Immigration lawyers spent Friday afternoon analyzing the policy memorandum and announcement, attempting to understand its scope of application.

Organizations providing legal and support services to immigrants reported receiving calls from worried clients about how the new guidelines would affect them.

“It’s really hard to tell how this is going to be applied,” said Jessie De Haven, senior staff attorney with the California Immigration Project a non profit that provides legal services to low income immigrants. “I do think it might have a chilling effect on people applying.”

The immigration case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia has become a lightning rod in discussions surrounding President Donald Trump’s border enforcement strategies since he first made headlines in March 2025 following his removal to El Salvador, which occurred despite a judicial order that should have stopped it.

Garcia’s complex legal battle has energized advocates on both sides of the immigration policy discussion. His situation involves two separate legal proceedings: a civil lawsuit in Maryland challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to send him to various African nations, and a criminal matter in Tennessee where federal prosecutors had accused him of human trafficking.

The Tennessee criminal case was recently thrown out by a judge who determined the Justice Department engaged in “vindictive prosecution.”

The following chronology outlines major developments in Garcia’s case:

Garcia departed El Salvador for the United States as a minor.

Law enforcement apprehended Garcia near a Maryland hardware store, alleging gang connections before transferring him to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.

An immigration judge in Maryland determined Garcia could not be sent back to El Salvador due to gang threats against his relatives. He received employment authorization and was placed under federal monitoring.

ICE officers detained Garcia in Baltimore as he drove home with his young son, age 5.

Garcia was wrongfully removed to El Salvador and imprisoned in a facility known for harsh conditions.

The nation’s highest court directed the Trump administration to facilitate Garcia’s return to the United States.

Upon his return, Garcia faced human trafficking charges stemming from a 2022 traffic incident in Tennessee.

Federal immigration officials announced intentions to send him to multiple African nations, but a Maryland federal judge issued a restraining order preventing this action.

Garcia was released from the Tennessee detention facility where he had been held since June to rejoin his family in Maryland while awaiting court proceedings. ICE immediately issued a notice of their plan to deport him to Uganda following his release.

Garcia appeared at a Baltimore immigration facility and was taken into federal custody.

A Maryland federal judge ordered Garcia’s immediate release from ICE detention.

The same Maryland federal judge prohibited ICE from detaining Garcia again.

A Tennessee federal judge dismissed all human trafficking charges against Garcia, citing evidence that prosecutors engaged in “vindictive prosecution.”

Democratic National Committee leadership is struggling to move forward following yesterday’s problematic release of their 2024 election analysis, while party chairman Ken Martin confronts growing demands for his resignation from fellow Democrats.

Martin, who leads the national committee, is receiving pressure from lawmakers and party operatives who believe he poorly handled a document meant to serve as a thorough review of the party’s shortcomings and potential blueprint moving forward. The chairman held the report back for several months, creating speculation about what it contained, before finally making it public this week while simultaneously declaring it too defective to provide value.

“There doesn’t seem to be a plan to turn things around and the clock is ticking. November is literally around the corner,” Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, told Semafor. “I believe it’s time for him to move on.”

“He should resign,” Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., said to Axios.

And in a radio interview, Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., said he agreed with a caller saying Martin should be replaced.

Despite the criticism, Martin retains backing from numerous state party officials who have received consistent financial support from the national organization since his appointment. During a Thursday discussion with committee staff members, Martin expressed regret for his management of the analysis and stated his commitment to remaining in his leadership role.

“This was a major mistake. I own it, and now it’s time for us to move forward at the DNC, and I hope that you’ll move forward with me,” Martin said, according to a person with knowledge of the call who was not authorized to disclose a private conversation.

Martin, who was relatively unknown as a Minnesota political operative before ascending to lead the national party’s official political apparatus last year, has previously drawn criticism for poor fundraising performance and his inability to build confidence among the party’s diverse membership.

However, there was no sign that a serious alternative was emerging. The Associated Press contacted a half dozen Democratic presidential prospects to gauge their support for Martin and all of them declined to weigh in.

The internal party conflict creates a significant distraction for Democrats who appear to be gaining political traction in their effort to challenge President Donald Trump’s control over Washington. The party aims to recapture control of both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate during November’s midterm contests, with Republicans potentially at risk due to Trump’s poor approval numbers, public dissatisfaction regarding the conflict in Iran, and ongoing economic concerns.

Martin’s supporters nationwide criticized Democrats who are contributing to the election-year turmoil, characterizing them as disgruntled consultants and backers of Martin’s former competitors for committee leadership.

Kansas Democratic Party Chair Jeanna RePass described calls for the first-term chair to step down as “ridiculous and dangerous.”

“It is dangerous for Democrats to be playing politics with our leadership when these elections are five and a half months away,” she said. “The American people are counting on us.”

Janet Kleeb of Nebraska, who leads her state party and the DNC’s association of state committees, said the fighting “is nuts.”

“I haven’t had a single chair come to me saying I think Ken needs to resign,” she said. “Ken was elected by the DNC members to do a four-year term, and he has not violated any of our rules or bylaws where there would be a two-thirds vote, right? Because that’s what it would take to remove the chair.”

Kleeb added, “These reports are such distraction.”

The much-anticipated post-election analysis concluded that Kamala Harris “wrote off rural America” during the 2024 presidential campaign and failed to attack Trump with sufficient “negative firepower,” among other key findings.

Martin distributed the 192-page document only after experiencing significant internal pressure from party operatives. He had initially promised to make the analysis public before assuming committee leadership last year, but chose to withhold it due to concerns it would disrupt Democrats’ concentration on the November midterm elections.

“I didn’t want to create a distraction,” Martin wrote on Substack. “Ironically, in doing so, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction. And for that, I sincerely apologize.”

While the analysis criticizes Democrats’ emphasis on “identity politics,” it avoids addressing some of the most contentious aspects of the 2024 campaign. The document fails to examine former President Joe Biden’s decision to seek reelection, the hurried process of selecting Harris as his replacement after he withdrew, or the party’s bitter disagreement over the war in Gaza.

A former Columbia University graduate student and pro-Palestinian activist plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court following a federal appeals court decision that brings the government closer to removing him from the country, according to his legal representatives.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia rejected a request for a full court review by a narrow 6-5 margin on Friday. Earlier this year in January, a three-judge panel from the same circuit determined that a New Jersey federal judge lacked authority when he sided with Mahmoud Khalil and ordered his release from immigration custody last year.

Legal representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union, who are part of Khalil’s defense team, announced they will seek an emergency order from the 3rd Circuit to halt enforcement of the ruling and prevent Khalil’s detention or removal while pursuing Supreme Court review.

The high court petition is anticipated within the coming months, potentially by late summer.

“Today’s decision is not the final word, and we still strongly believe in our arguments going forward,” stated ACLU senior counsel Brett Max Kaufman.

The January appeals court ruling determined that Khalil’s legal challenge to his detention and subsequent federal court decisions were filed too early, as federal law mandates such disputes must first proceed through the immigration court system under the Justice Department rather than the judicial branch.

The ruling did not address the central constitutional question in Khalil’s situation: whether the Trump administration’s attempt to remove him based on his campus activism and criticism of Israel violates constitutional protections.

Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, who supported the court’s review of the decision, criticized the majority in her dissent, writing that the court was “abdicating our duty to meaningfully review Khalil’s constitutional claims.” She argued the Judicial Branch cannot serve as a proper check on other government branches “if we write ourselves out of relevance and leave the Executive Branch to check itself.”

The 31-year-old Khalil has simultaneously appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana, where he was held in custody, challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to uphold his removal order.

Khalil’s legal team contends the immigration judge failed to properly evaluate relevant evidence and incorrectly upheld allegations that he provided false information on his permanent resident application. His attorneys maintain this charge was filed as retaliation for his protest activities.

The immigration court suggested Khalil could be sent to Algeria, where he holds citizenship through a distant family connection, or Syria, his birthplace in a refugee camp to Palestinian parents. His legal team warns he would face life-threatening dangers if returned to either location.

As a prominent voice in Columbia’s pro-Palestinian movement, Khalil was taken into custody in March 2025 and subsequently held for three months at a Louisiana immigration facility, causing him to miss his child’s birth.

Government officials have alleged Khalil led activities “aligned to Hamas,” though they have not provided supporting evidence and have not filed criminal charges. They also claim he omitted required information from his green card application.

Khalil has rejected these accusations as “baseless and ridiculous,” describing his arrest and detention as a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”

The government based the arrest on a rarely invoked law permitting removal of non-citizens whose beliefs are considered threatening to U.S. foreign policy objectives. In June 2025, Judge Michael Farbiarz determined this justification would likely be found unconstitutional and ordered Khalil’s release.

The Trump administration challenged that decision, maintaining that deportation matters should be decided by immigration judges rather than federal courts. The 3rd Circuit sided with the administration in a 2-1 ruling.

Judge Emil Bove, who previously investigated student protesters as a senior Justice Department official, did not take part in the 3rd Circuit’s vote on whether to review the case. He subsequently denied a motion from Khalil’s lawyers requesting his recusal, declaring the request moot.

Federal tax authorities are contemplating whether to mandate that taxpayers reveal their citizenship status on upcoming tax documents, three sources with knowledge of the discussions told Reuters on Friday.

Officials at the Internal Revenue Service are reviewing two different versions of the standard Form 1040 that individuals use to report income and request tax benefits, according to the sources who requested anonymity due to concerns about workplace consequences.

One version features routine modifications reflecting updated tax regulations. The alternative includes these same changes plus an additional checkbox stating: “Check this box if you are a non-U.S. citizen or have dual citizenship.”

Treasury Department spokespeople, who oversee the IRS, refused to provide comment on Friday regarding the potential changes.

All immigrants, including those without legal documentation, must file annual tax returns using identical IRS paperwork as citizens. Filing taxes has historically served as an important pathway for undocumented individuals seeking to achieve legal immigration status.

Throughout 2025, the Treasury Department and Department of Homeland Security worked to establish data-sharing agreements, providing confidential taxpayer information to immigration authorities supporting the administration’s removal operations.

A federal court judge issued an order in November preventing the IRS from releasing such information, though the federal government has challenged this decision on appeal. In February, the IRS acknowledged to the court that it had mistakenly provided DHS with confidential data belonging to over 42,000 taxpayers.

WASHINGTON, May 22 – Two senior House Democrats sent a letter Friday demanding Secretary of State Marco Rubio provide answers about whether his top aide assisted in fast-tracking a visa that enabled a fugitive former Polish Cabinet official to escape to America from Hungary, dodging Poland’s extradition efforts.

“These events and decisions constitute a massive abuse of power and disregard for the legal immigration processes of the United States,” Representatives Gregory Meeks and James Raskin stated in their letter to Rubio, which Reuters obtained.

Both lawmakers hold ranking Democratic positions on the House foreign relations and judiciary panels.

The visa approval amounts to “an unprecedented level of interference in the domestic politics and judicial systems of two longstanding U.S. treaty allies,” the representatives stated, referencing Poland and Hungary, which are both NATO partners.

The Democrats’ correspondence referenced a Monday Reuters investigation revealing that Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau instructed high-ranking State Department personnel to process and fast-track a U.S. visa for former Polish Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro.

Polish authorities seek Ziobro on 26 criminal counts primarily connected to his purported mishandling of funds from a crime victims program. Ziobro maintains his innocence, claiming he faces a politically driven prosecution by Poland’s current pro-European Union governing alliance.

Neither the State Department nor White House provided immediate responses to comment requests.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s administration states it plans to prosecute Ziobro and that legal officials have drafted an extradition petition to the United States.

Ziobro escaped to Hungary in January and obtained refuge under former Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Warsaw anticipated that Orban’s electoral loss to pro-EU challenger Peter Magyar in April would result in Ziobro’s return to Poland. Magyar had pledged to extradite him immediately upon taking office.

However, Landau instructed senior personnel within the State Department’s Consular Affairs Bureau in Washington to direct the U.S. embassy in Budapest to provide Ziobro with a visa, according to three sources, with one indicating it was a journalist visa.

Ziobro obtained his visa before Magyar’s May 9 inauguration and, per Polish prosecutors, journeyed to Italy before reaching the U.S. using a refugee document since his Polish passport had been canceled.

In their correspondence, Meeks and Raskin highlighted that Ziobro could face up to 25 years imprisonment if found guilty on his charges, which include accusations he utilized crime victims compensation money to purchase surveillance software for targeting political opponents.

The legislators warned that approving Ziobro’s visa risked “invite a significant diplomatic crisis” with Poland. They insisted the Trump administration honor any extradition demands from Warsaw.

They requested Rubio provide written responses to questions regarding the matter and conduct an in-person briefing for their committees by June 21.

Their inquiries included whether U.S. President Donald Trump or his staff participated in authorizing Ziobro’s visa and the legal basis for its approval.

The duo also requested all documentation and correspondence involving Landau, the Bureau of Consular Affairs, the U.S. embassies in Warsaw and Budapest, and any materials concerning potential involvement by Tom Rose, the U.S. ambassador to Poland.

WASHINGTON — A group of President Donald Trump’s opponents filed a federal lawsuit Friday seeking to halt distributions from a newly established $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund designed to compensate Trump supporters who claim they were targeted by government persecution.

The legal challenge intensifies growing opposition to the Trump administration’s establishment of the settlement fund, which emerged from the Republican president’s legal dispute with the Internal Revenue Service concerning the disclosure of his tax documents.

Lawyers representing the challengers from Democracy Forward, a legal advocacy organization, are requesting judicial intervention to stop the fund’s operation and block the Trump administration from making any payments through the program.

The group bringing the lawsuit includes a dismissed prosecutor and a college professor who was cleared of charges related to allegedly attacking federal agents during a demonstration.

Additionally, two law enforcement officers who participated in defending the U.S. Capitol during the January 6, 2021 assault filed their own legal action this week aimed at preventing Capitol riot participants from accessing settlement payments.

When questioned during Tuesday’s congressional testimony, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche declined to exclude the possibility that individuals who attacked police officers on January 6 might qualify for compensation from the settlement fund.

Federal immigration officials have no active agreements or connections with surveillance software company Paragon Solutions, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

The agency clarified that Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintains no existing contracts or business relationships with the spyware manufacturer.

Despite this denial, ongoing concerns remain about whether ICE utilizes commercial surveillance technology in its operations.

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers from both political parties are confronting the Department of Defense over stalled distribution of $600 million in military assistance for Ukraine and eastern European partners, sending correspondence to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Friday demanding immediate release of the funds.

Tensions have escalated between Capitol Hill and the current administration in recent weeks as members of Congress seek answers about the status of $400 million designated for Ukraine and an additional $200 million earmarked for defense initiatives in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Congress approved this funding during the previous year. Even members of the president’s own party have expressed dissatisfaction as President Donald Trump’s administration distances itself from Ukraine and European partnerships.

“Ukraine has persistently and bravely repelled a four-year Russian onslaught, but its military needs and deserves continued American support,” said Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin and Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley in the joint letter.

Republican Sens. Kevin Cramer and Thom Tillis and Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet and Catherine Cortez Masto also signed onto the letter.

More than three weeks ago during congressional testimony, Hegseth informed legislators that the Ukraine assistance had been “released” and promised a distribution plan would be forwarded to lawmakers shortly. However, the senators indicate the Pentagon has not delivered on its commitment to provide that plan by the May 15 deadline.

“Any further delays — particularly as the Department reportedly plans troubling U.S. troops withdrawals from the region — risks our ability to adequately deter Russia,” the senators said.

This correspondence represents another indication of Senate Republican dissatisfaction with the current administration following a week where the president backed a primary opponent against Texas Sen. John Cornyn, creating widespread anger.

Through social media exchanges with the president on Friday, Tillis criticized Trump’s advisors for policies he claims are damaging the party politically, including, “Firing our very best generals and not holding Putin accountable for his systematic kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder of Ukrainian civilians.”

Multiple party members have also questioned Hegseth’s decision to dismiss Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George last month. George had advocated for restructuring Army combat tactics to include drone technology and had collaborated with Ukrainian forces to gain battlefield insights.

In the House, a proposal backed by opposition party members to implement comprehensive Russian sanctions and provide $1 billion in military support to Ukraine has gained traction. Although this aid package faces slim chances of becoming law, it’s contributing to renewed congressional momentum for backing Ukraine’s defense efforts.

The $400 million in security assistance for Ukraine represents a modest amount compared to the multi-billion dollar packages that Congress initially authorized in the months and years following Russia’s invasion, but for lawmakers, this provision has become symbolic of their ongoing commitment.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A federal court has dismissed human smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia on Friday, after his wrongful deportation became a flashpoint in immigration policy debates during President Donald Trump’s administration.

Garcia’s removal to El Salvador last year created significant problems for Trump administration officials when courts ordered his return to the United States. Garcia argued that both when the criminal charges were filed and inflammatory public comments made by senior Trump officials proved the case against him was retaliatory.

From Nashville, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw approved Garcia’s request to dismiss the case due to “selective or vindictive prosecution.”

The decision represented a significant criticism of a Justice Department that faced repeated allegations under President Donald Trump of pursuing defendants for political reasons. The Trump administration highlighted the charges against Garcia during a news conference last year where then-Attorney General Pam Bondi stated, “This is what American justice looks like.”

“Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a victim of a politicized, vindictive White House and its lawyers at what used to be an independent Justice Department,” Garcia’s defense team said following Friday’s decision. “We are so pleased that he is a free man.”

The Justice Department promised to challenge the ruling, describing the judge’s decision as “wrong and dangerous.”

Crenshaw noted that without Garcia’s “successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the government would not have brought this prosecution,” while rejecting government claims of “new evidence” against him.

While Crenshaw didn’t conclude the government demonstrated “actual vindictiveness,” a difficult standard typically requiring evidence such as prosecutors admitting charges were filed for revenge, the judge determined sufficient evidence existed for “presumptive vindictiveness.” This included when the indictment was filed, public statements by then-U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and continued oversight by other senior Justice Department officials that thoroughly compromised the case against Garcia.

Crenshaw found the government’s explanations unconvincing.

Garcia faced charges of human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling, with federal prosecutors alleging he received payment to transport individuals who were illegally present in the United States.

The accusations originated from a 2022 Tennessee traffic stop for speeding. Body camera video from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer captured a peaceful interaction with Garcia. Nine passengers were in the vehicle, and officers privately discussed potential smuggling concerns. Ultimately, Garcia was permitted to leave with just a warning.

In Friday’s decision, Crenshaw emphasized that when the charges were filed was key to presuming vindictiveness. Homeland Security knew about the traffic incident for two years and had concluded the case against Garcia when they deported him. After the U.S. Supreme Court determined he should return to the U.S., they revived the case. Though the government needed to counter the vindictiveness presumption, prosecutors failed to call the person who reopened the case to testify about their reasoning, providing only “secondhand testimony” instead.

Garcia’s deportation violated a 2019 immigration court ruling that protected him from removal to his native country, after the judge determined he faced threats there from a gang targeting his family. Garcia is a Salvadoran national with an American spouse and child who resided in Maryland for years despite entering the U.S. illegally as a minor. The 2019 ruling permitted him to live and work in the U.S. under Immigration and Customs Enforcement monitoring, though he didn’t receive permanent residency.

Current Trump administration officials have stated Garcia cannot stay in the U.S. They have pledged to remove him to a third nation, most recently Liberia.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s intelligence chief announced her departure on Friday, with Tulsi Gabbard stepping down from her position as director of national intelligence to care for her husband who is fighting cancer. Her exit marks the fourth Cabinet departure since President Donald Trump began his second term.

Through a resignation letter shared on social media, Gabbard informed Trump of her intention to leave her post on June 30. She explained that her spouse had received a recent diagnosis of an uncommon bone cancer type and “faces major challenges in the coming weeks and months.”

“At this time, I must step away from public service to be by his side and fully support him through this battle,” she stated in the letter, which Fox News initially reported.

Trump acknowledged her departure through his own social media announcement, stating “Tulsi has done an incredible job, and we will miss her.” He named her principal deputy, Aaron Lukas, as the interim intelligence director.

Lukas previously worked as an intelligence assistant to the acting director of national intelligence, Ric Grenell, during Trump’s first presidency in 2020. The former policy researcher at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, also held the position of deputy senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council during Trump’s initial administration’s final year.

Speculation had emerged about potential tensions between Gabbard and Trump following the president’s choice to attack Iran, creating divisions within his administration. Joe Kent, who heads the National Counterterrorism Center, stepped down in March, stating he “cannot in good conscience” support the war.

The former Democratic representative from Hawaii and military veteran established her political reputation through her opposition to international military conflicts. This stance created complications when the United States partnered with Israel to launch strikes against Iran on Feb. 28.

Her cautious remarks during a March congressional hearing stood out for their deliberate avoidance of endorsing Trump’s Iran strike decision. She consistently avoided answering questions about whether the White House received warnings regarding potential consequences from the conflict, including Iran’s effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

In written statements to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Gabbard reported that Iran had made no attempts to reconstruct its nuclear capabilities following U.S. attacks that “obliterated” its nuclear program the previous year. This assessment conflicted with Trump’s repeated claims that military action was essential to prevent an immediate threat from the Islamic Republic.

These differences led to uncomfortable moments with legislators who sought Gabbard’s assessment of Iran’s danger level in her role as the country’s chief intelligence officer. She consistently maintained that the strike decision belonged to Trump, not her.

“It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” she stated.

Her resignation comes after Trump removed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in late March amid growing criticism of her department leadership, particularly regarding immigration enforcement and disaster response management.

Attorney General Pam Bondi became the second Cabinet member to depart, responding to increasing frustration over the Justice Department’s management of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer resigned in April following various misconduct investigations.

Despite her military background, Gabbard lacked intelligence experience, making her selection to lead the Office of the Director of National Intelligence unexpected. This office supervises the country’s 18 intelligence organizations. She pursued the presidency in 2020 with a progressive agenda centered on opposing U.S. participation in foreign military operations.

Drawing on her military service, she contended that American wars in the Middle East had created regional instability, reduced U.S. security, and resulted in thousands of American casualties. Gabbard eventually withdrew from the presidential race and supported the eventual victor, President Joe Biden.

She departed the Democratic Party two years later to become an independent, criticizing her former party as controlled by an “elitist cabal of warmongers” and “woke” ideologues. She subsequently supported several prominent Republicans and joined Fox News as a contributor.

Her endorsement went to Trump, who similarly criticized previous U.S. Middle Eastern wars and promised to prevent unnecessary conflicts and overseas nation-building efforts.

However, disagreements with the president emerged shortly after he started his second term and selected Gabbard to head ODNI, an agency established following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to enhance intelligence agency coordination.

Soon after assuming her role, Gabbard told lawmakers that no intelligence indicated Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons development. Following Trump’s June attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, he declared Gabbard incorrect and dismissed her assessments.

She seemed to regain Trump’s favor when she took a prominent role in his efforts to challenge his 2020 election defeat to Biden, whom Gabbard had previously endorsed. She participated in an FBI search of election offices in Fulton County, Georgia, despite her agency’s focus on foreign espionage rather than state elections.

This week, she testified during an annual threats hearing that last year’s Iranian nuclear site strikes had “obliterated” their nuclear program without subsequent rebuilding efforts.

Her statement appeared to contradict Trump’s ongoing claims about Iran’s immediate threat level, leading to uncomfortable exchanges with legislators seeking her professional opinion on Iran’s danger as the nation’s top intelligence official. She maintained that strike decisions belonged to Trump.

“It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” she reiterated during this week’s hearings.

Gabbard promised to end what she characterized as intelligence politicization by government insiders. However, she quickly utilized her position to advance Trump’s partisan arguments, including his claims of winning the 2020 election.

She also worked to undermine previous investigations into Trump’s Russian connections.

During her tenure, Gabbard supervised significant intelligence workforce reductions and established a new task force to consider major intelligence service modifications.

An intelligence sector whistleblower filed a complaint earlier this year alleging that Gabbard withheld intelligence for political purposes, prompting Democratic calls for her resignation.

The 44-year-old was born in American Samoa, grew up in Hawaii, and spent part of her childhood in the Philippines. She won election to Hawaii’s House of Representatives at age 21 but had to leave after one term when her National Guard unit deployed to Iraq.

As the House’s first Hindu member, Gabbard took her oath with her hand on the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu devotional text. She also became the first American Samoan elected to Congress.

Throughout her four House terms, she gained recognition for challenging her party’s leadership. Her early backing of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 Democratic presidential primary campaign elevated her profile in national progressive politics.

President Donald Trump announced Friday that he will skip his eldest son’s wedding this weekend, citing urgent government responsibilities that require him to remain in Washington.

The president revealed his decision in a Truth Social post, explaining that he cannot attend Donald Trump Jr.’s marriage to Palm Beach socialite Bettina Anderson due to official duties.

“While I very much wanted to be with my son, Don Jr., and the newest member of the Trump Family, his soon to be wife, Bettina, circumstances pertaining to Government, and my love for the United States of America, do not allow me to do so,” Trump wrote in his social media announcement.

“I feel it is important for me to remain in Washington, D.C., at the White House during this important period of time,” the post continued.

According to CNN reports from Thursday, the ceremony is scheduled to occur this weekend on a small island in the Bahamas, with sources familiar with the arrangements providing the details. A spokesperson for Donald Trump Jr. did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

During remarks to reporters Thursday, Trump indicated that his son wanted him present for the celebration, describing it as a “small private affair.”

Trump mentioned Thursday that he would attempt to attend the wedding but acknowledged the difficult timing.

“I have a thing called Iran and other things,” Trump said on Thursday.

The administration is currently participating in Pakistan-mediated diplomatic discussions aimed at reaching an agreement to conclude the conflict with Iran that the U.S. and Israel initiated on February 28, which has disrupted the worldwide economy.

This marks Donald Trump Jr.’s third engagement. His previous marriage to Vanessa, a former model and actress, lasted 12 years and produced five children before she initiated divorce proceedings in 2018. He subsequently became engaged to Kimberly Guilfoyle, a television personality, until their separation in 2024.