Blog

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate cast a historic vote Tuesday, backing legislation that would order President Donald Trump to bring American military action against Iran to a stop — the latest sign that some members of his own party are growing increasingly uncomfortable with his leadership.

Senators approved the war powers resolution by a 50-48 margin. The measure had already cleared the House of Representatives earlier this month, driven by rising unease — even within Trump’s own Republican Party — over a conflict that began on February 28 and has grown deeply unpopular.

This marks the first occasion in American history that both chambers of Congress have simultaneously passed a resolution ordering a president to pull U.S. forces out of an active conflict since the War Powers Resolution — more widely known as the War Powers Act — became law back in 1973.

Though the resolution is widely expected to be largely symbolic in its effect, it still represents a notable blow to Trump, who had until recently enjoyed nearly unanimous backing from Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The vote also comes at a particularly sensitive moment, as the administration is expected to soon ask Congress to approve tens of billions of dollars in funding to cover the costs of the war.

Republicans currently hold narrow majorities in both the Senate and the House, but a handful have begun breaking ranks with the president on select issues as November’s mid-term elections approach — elections that will decide whether the GOP keeps control of Congress.

Some Republicans have already pushed back on other Trump priorities, including his $1.8 billion “antiweaponization” fund intended to compensate political allies he claims were targeted by federal authorities, and they have also stalled a $70 billion bill aimed at funding his immigration enforcement efforts.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released the same day as the Senate vote found that only one in four Americans feel the war with Iran has been worth the price, and that most Americans are skeptical a ceasefire with Tehran will hold over time.

The Senate tally broke largely along party lines. Four Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats in favor of the resolution, while all but one Democrat voted yes. Two Republican senators were absent and did not cast votes.

Legal Questions Remain Unresolved

The Trump administration is currently engaged in efforts to negotiate a peace agreement with Iran. Congressional support for the resolution is expected to increase pressure on Trump not to restart military operations — something he has hinted he may do if peace talks break down.

Under the terms of the 1973 War Powers Act, a concurrent resolution passed by both chambers does not require the president’s signature. Congress designed such resolutions as a tool to end military engagements without needing White House approval.

However, legal experts caution that the matter is far from settled. No war powers resolution had ever previously passed both chambers, and a Supreme Court ruling from 1983 stated that such a measure must be sent to the president for signature or veto in order to carry legal weight.

The White House has taken the position that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional and therefore not binding on the executive branch.

A White House official said Tuesday that the Senate vote carries no real significance, arguing that because the resolution does not go to the president, it has no force of law — and pointing out that the measure only passed because two Republican senators were not present to vote.

The official also argued that the resolution is moot because U.S. forces were already removed from hostilities when a ceasefire took effect on April 7.

Experts believe the constitutional questions surrounding the War Powers Act will ultimately need to be resolved by the courts.

Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and senior editor of the legal publication Lawfare, offered this assessment: “The executive branch will likely ignore it on constitutional grounds, and it’s not clear who might have standing to sue to enforce it.”

Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, who introduced the resolution in the House, said he considers the measure legally binding and pledged to pursue every available legal avenue to compel the administration to comply with it.

Democrats also pointed to the U.S. Constitution’s language giving Congress — not the president — the authority to take the nation to war. “Congress has to own this responsibility,” said Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia in remarks on the Senate floor urging his colleagues to support the measure.

A Small But Meaningful Coalition

The resolution had also cleared the House with limited Republican support, passing 215-208 with four Republicans and all Democrats voting in favor.

The four Republican senators who voted for the measure were Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the lone Democrat to vote against it.

Republicans Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and David McCormick of Pennsylvania were absent and did not vote.

Democratic lawmakers have pledged to bring additional war powers measures to the floor, saying they intend to keep forcing Republicans to take public positions on the conflict.

Separately, under a 2015 law passed when then-President Barack Obama was negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran and other world powers, Congress retains the right to review and vote on any peace agreement with Tehran that touches on Iran’s nuclear program.

Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said Tuesday that he anticipates Congress will indeed review and vote on whatever peace deal is eventually reached with Iran.

California is preparing to take the Trump administration to court over its move to buy out and cancel an offshore wind energy project planned along the state’s central coast.

State officials announced Tuesday that they have sent a formal notice of intent to sue to the Department of the Interior. The legal challenge centers on the administration’s decision to purchase back the lease for Golden State Wind, a floating offshore wind project off California’s central coast.

Offshore wind is a cornerstone of California’s clean energy strategy. The state has set a goal of developing 25 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2045 — enough electricity to serve roughly 25 million homes and account for about 13% of the state’s total energy supply.

California Energy Commission Chair David Hochschild said those energy and climate goals are now under threat, and the state intends to fight back hard. He described the administration’s approach of repurchasing offshore wind leases as “a strategic mistake of colossal proportions,” calling it particularly alarming at a time when fossil fuel prices have been climbing due to the Iran war.

“Countries that thrive around the world are those that lean into innovation, into the energy sources of the future,” Hochschild said in a Tuesday interview. “And so to turn away from this, and turn back the clock, and really engage in what I consider to be a war on innovation, is really ill-considered. And I think it’s a decision that’s not just bad for California, it’s bad for the nation.”

President Donald Trump has championed increased fossil fuel production as a way to deliver affordable and reliable energy to Americans, and he has repeatedly expressed his opposition to wind power. After federal courts blocked his attempts to halt offshore wind development through executive orders, the Interior Department shifted to a new approach: buying back the leases directly.

In these buyback arrangements, companies receive reimbursements for their lease fees in exchange for redirecting that money into fossil fuel and geothermal energy projects. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said last week that “under President Trump, companies are shifting investment back toward dependable, secure energy infrastructure that can power our economy and lower utility costs.”

California currently has five federal offshore wind leases along its coastline. Two of those are being terminated through agreements with the Interior Department: Golden State Wind and a separate floating wind project developed by Chicago-based Invenergy. On Tuesday, the state also issued an administrative investigative subpoena to Invenergy, which last week accepted a $765 million agreement to walk away from its offshore wind leases.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a statement saying the state will not sit back while the Trump administration “illegally strikes deals to kill offshore wind projects and replace them with more windfalls for his fossil fuel friends.”

The total cost of all these lease buyback agreements has reached nearly $2.6 billion. The first deal, announced in March, involves French company TotalEnergies receiving close to $1 billion — essentially a full refund on two offshore wind leases off the coasts of North Carolina and New York — on the condition that the money be reinvested in fossil fuels. New York is leading a legal challenge to that agreement, and congressional Democrats are investigating it.

Golden State Wind and Bluepoint Wind both agreed in April to terminate their leases. Bluepoint Wind had been in the early stages of developing an offshore wind farm off the coasts of New Jersey and New York.

Golden State Wind is a joint venture between Ocean Winds and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Under the terms of its agreement, Golden State Wind can recoup approximately $120 million in lease fees, provided the same amount is invested in oil and gas assets, infrastructure, or projects along the Gulf Coast, according to the Interior Department. Michael Brown, CEO of Ocean Winds North America, said in April that the deal offered “clarity” for the company and its investors.

Hochschild and Bonta contend that the Interior Department illegally used federal taxpayer funds to pay Golden State Wind to abandon its offshore wind lease and invest an equivalent sum in out-of-state fossil fuel projects — moves they say provide no benefit to California’s energy economy.

The two officials also noted that California has invested more than $100 million over the past decade preparing its ports, transmission systems, and industries to support offshore wind development. They warned those investments could be wasted if the Trump administration successfully shuts down offshore wind in the state.

If the matter is not resolved, California intends to file its lawsuit within 60 days.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican senators who have found themselves at odds with President Donald Trump lately will get a chance to speak with him directly when he joins them for a party luncheon at the Capitol on Wednesday.

Ahead of that gathering, senators said Tuesday they are hoping the private meeting will be focused on bringing the party together rather than airing grievances. But the timing is complicated — Trump appears to have stepped back from much of the Senate’s legislative agenda as the November midterm elections approach, instead pushing a proof-of-citizenship voting bill that currently lacks the support needed to pass.

Earlier Tuesday, the President traveled to a Mack Trucks facility in Macungie, located in the suburbs of Allentown, Pennsylvania. The visit marked his first significant public appearance outside the nation’s capital since he signed an interim agreement bringing the Iran war to a close.

The Pennsylvania stop was seen as an effort to redirect the national conversation toward the U.S. economy, as Trump looks to move past the conflict and the spike in gasoline prices it triggered — all with the midterm elections drawing nearer.

Trump took a private tour of the facility before delivering remarks that observers noted carried the energy of a reelection rally from two years ago, while also highlighting what he described as accomplishments during his second term in office.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is stepping back from a sweeping plan to convert large warehouses into mass immigrant detention centers, abandoning a central piece of a $38-billion initiative that former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem championed to dramatically grow detention capacity this year.

The federal government, which faced a lawsuit from Michigan and a Detroit-area suburb, told a judge Monday that a warehouse it purchased in Romulus, Michigan, will be put up for sale. Similar plans are also falling apart in Social Circle, Georgia, and Socorro, a suburb of El Paso, Texas, according to local officials in those communities.

Those three cities are part of a group of 11 locations where the federal government collectively spent $1.074 billion purchasing warehouse properties.

The New York Times reported last week, citing internal documents it obtained, that federal immigration officials now intend to unload seven of those 11 warehouses — either by transferring them to other federal agencies or selling them on the open market.

The Department of Homeland Security did not directly confirm those reports, but released a statement saying the agency is “moving swiftly to utilize EXISTING detention space with our state and county partners.”

Claire Trickler-McNulty, a former ICE official who served under the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, had sharp words for the warehouse conversion idea, calling it “wildly foolhardy.”

Part of the backlash stemmed from how the purchases were handled. Noem’s team largely carried out the acquisitions away from public scrutiny, blindsiding many communities. In some cases, local leaders only found out about ICE’s intentions after the agency had already bought or leased space in their area.

After Noem was removed from her position, her successor, Markwayne Mullin, quickly put the brakes on any additional warehouse purchases.

Opposition came from multiple directions — some residents and officials objected on moral grounds to having an ICE detention facility in their neighborhoods, while others raised practical concerns about whether the facilities would strain local infrastructure like water and sewer systems.

Seven federal lawsuits were filed against the plans, and regulatory obstacles created additional headaches in other locations.

Financial questions also arose about how much the government paid. In one case, the agency paid double what a New Jersey warehouse was valued at in tax records. For the Social Circle, Georgia, property, the government paid nearly five times its assessed value. Those discrepancies triggered an internal audit.

Trickler-McNulty noted that while ICE does own a handful of facilities it inherited from its predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the agency has historically contracted out its detention needs rather than owning and operating large facilities itself.

“Facilities over 2,000 people just break down. It’s very hard to run a very big facility, to keep it staffed, to keep all of it moving,” she said.

Mullin, who took over and expanded his family’s plumbing business before serving Oklahoma in both the U.S. House and Senate, acknowledged during his confirmation hearing that there had been problems with the warehouse plan. He pointed out that most municipalities simply don’t have the water and sewer infrastructure to support facilities housing thousands of people.

Water supply challenges proved particularly severe at the Salt Lake City warehouse — the most expensive of the bunch at $145.4 million. A federal lawsuit over that property revealed that ICE officials told the city’s mayor that trucking water and sewage to and from the facility might be needed as a temporary fix.

According to the New York Times report, the Salt Lake City warehouse is among those slated to be handed off or sold. Others on the list include the Romulus facility, one in New Jersey, two in Georgia, and two in Pennsylvania.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said it would have been an “abomination” if the 249,000-square-foot Romulus warehouse had been converted into an immigrant detention center as originally planned when it was purchased for $34.7 million.

“The ICE warehouse proposal was every bit as ill-conceived as it was cruel and unnecessary, and I am relieved that this chapter is coming to a close,” Nessel said.

Social Circle, Georgia, announced last week that it received word from U.S. Rep. Mike Collins, a Republican, that the Department of Homeland Security has dropped its plans to build an ICE detention facility there.

In the El Paso region, acting ICE Director David Venturella visited the area earlier this month and informed local officials that the agency has revised its plans for three warehouses it purchased in nearby Socorro for $122 million, according to U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, who was present during the visit.

Escobar, a Democrat representing El Paso, said at a news conference that ICE is no longer planning to detain up to 8,500 immigrants at those facilities as originally envisioned. Instead, the property will be converted into an ICE campus that includes offices and training space, along with a smaller — though unspecified — number of detainees.

Despite some progress, many communities remain frustrated by a lack of communication from federal officials about what happens next.

In Pennsylvania, state and local officials said Tuesday they had not received any updated information from DHS regarding two warehouses purchased earlier this year. Both projects have been held up after the state denied permits, citing concerns that drinking water and sewer capacity would be insufficient for thousands of residents.

U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser, whose district covers both Pennsylvania warehouses, said he met with DHS personnel on Friday but that the agency had not yet decided whether to use the properties as detention centers or sell them.

In Oakwood, Georgia, the city manager said Tuesday he is reaching out to his congressional delegation trying to confirm rumors that a warehouse in his city will be sold. “I have not heard anything yet,” said B.R. White.

In Maryland, a judge has extended a halt on converting a large warehouse into an immigrant processing facility, while ICE continues to gather public comments about the environmental impact of the project. An announcement earlier this month provided additional details about the planned facility, including six secure outdoor recreation areas.

Patrick Dattilio, founder of Hagerstown Rapid Response — a group formed specifically to oppose housing ICE detainees in that warehouse — said there has been little communication beyond what has come out through the lawsuit. He said his group remains committed to preventing the facility from ever opening.

“It’s a big warehouse,” Dattilio said. “It’s not meant for people.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Trump and Vice President Vance are billing their interim agreement to end hostilities with Iran as a major windfall for American agriculture — but Iranian officials are pushing back hard on that claim, and sanctions experts say they’re left scratching their heads over the specifics.

A preliminary agreement reached last week would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas once flowed. The deal would allow Iran to resume selling its oil freely during a 60-day window while the two nations continue negotiating unresolved issues. The memorandum of understanding also included provisions to unfreeze Iranian assets.

The agreement has drawn criticism for not directly addressing the issues Trump cited when the U.S. went to war with Iran on Feb. 28 — including reining in Iran’s nuclear program, its missile capabilities, and its backing of militant organizations like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Firing back at his critics Tuesday on Truth Social, Trump insisted American farmers would benefit directly. He wrote that the U.S. Treasury Department would move Iranian assets “into escrow, controlled by the U.S.A., and will be used for the purchase of food and medical supplies, exclusively from the United States, including Corn, Wheat, and Soybeans from our great American farmers. These are things that are desperately needed by Iran.”

Vance, who discussed the proposal following high-level negotiations held in Switzerland, echoed Trump’s position that any frozen funds held outside Iran would go toward purchasing American crops.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, rejected that framing entirely, saying any agricultural purchases would be driven by “prices and quality” — not conditions set by Washington. “It is interesting that the philosophy and goal of the war, which was the destruction of the Iranian civilization and the collapse of Iran, has become enriching American farmers,” Baghaei said.

Iran’s ambassador in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, also pushed back against Vance’s suggestion that the U.S. and Qatar would have a say in how Iran spends its unfrozen money. “Iran is the only country who decides what to do with those assets,” he told reporters.

Joseph Glauber, a research fellow emeritus at the International Food Policy Research Institute, said it’s unlikely Iran would walk away from its existing food trade partners just because Washington demands it. He noted that Iran’s main agricultural suppliers include Brazil, India, Turkey, the European Union, Canada, Australia, and Argentina. Forcing Iran to buy exclusively from the U.S. would “create some hard feelings with some of our competitors,” he said.

Under previous sanctions frameworks, money that foreign nations paid Iran for imports — such as South Korean oil purchases or Iraqi payments for Iranian electricity — was typically locked in escrow accounts and only released with Treasury approval, and only for “non-sanctionable” goods like food and medicine.

On Monday, the U.S. Treasury approved the sale of Iranian oil, petrochemicals, and petroleum products through Aug. 21. The announcement made no mention of escrow accounts.

Richard Goldberg of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who worked to build diplomatic pressure on Iran during the first Trump administration, posted on X that he would welcome “a clarification that Iran is actually restricted to only buying U.S. agricultural products.”

Richard Nephew, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, said the agreement’s actual implications for releasing restricted Iranian assets remain unclear. Nephew, who helped construct Iran sanctions during the Obama and Biden administrations, said via email that the U.S. could attempt to direct the funds: “Well, we can try! All you really need to do is to tell a foreign bank that they can move the money but only to a U.S. bank to buy soybeans or whatever.”

He noted, however, that foreign banks aren’t required to comply — and if they refuse, the U.S. could respond with additional sanctions. Still, Nephew said such an approach is unusual, “in part because we don’t usually like to give the impression that we treat national security issues as a cash grab.”

A group of 17 states, led by Nebraska, along with a national trade association representing wholesalers and distributors, have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block California from enforcing a tough new law aimed at reducing plastic packaging waste.

The suit was filed Monday in federal court and targets California’s recently finalized rules, which would gradually require businesses to cut back on single-use plastics and ensure that all packaging is either recyclable or compostable. The plaintiffs described the regulations as “onerous mandates” that would lead to significant price hikes on everyday necessities — costs they say would ultimately be passed along to consumers.

Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who spearheaded the coalition, criticized California’s reach in a news release. “Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country. If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities,” he said.

The law at the center of the dispute — the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act — was signed into law in 2022. According to the lawsuit, it has an extraordinarily broad reach: “Virtually every product packaged or shipped in plastic containers, as well as a significant number of other types of packaging materials that merely incorporate plastics, fall into the Act’s remarkable sweep.”

The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, which represents businesses that import and distribute goods in California, is also a plaintiff in the case. The group’s president and CEO, Eric Hoplin, argued that California is overstepping its authority. “California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Hoplin said. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”

The lawsuit contends the law runs afoul of both the U.S. Constitution and California’s own constitution. The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the law invalid and unenforceable and to stop it from being put into effect.

Named as defendants in the suit are Zoe Heller, the director of California’s recycling agency CalRecycle, and the Circular Action Alliance, a nonprofit organization involved in carrying out the law.

A CalRecycle spokesperson, Melanie Turner, said in an emailed statement that the agency does not comment on active litigation and that it remains focused on moving forward with the law’s implementation.

The Circular Action Alliance said it is aware of the lawsuit and is keeping a close watch on how things develop, while continuing its work to achieve the law’s “ambitious goals.”

California officials have defended the law, saying it shifts the responsibility for managing single-use plastic and packaging waste away from taxpayers and local governments and onto the companies that produce it. Environmental Protection Secretary Yana Garcia said in a statement issued in May: “California is shifting the responsibility of managing single-use plastic and packaging onto the producers. New packaging reforms lower waste costs for communities and decrease garbage and pollution across the state. This approach pushes producers to innovate and design packaging that truly supports a circular economy.”

Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit are 16 other states whose attorneys general are Republican: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

Notably, environmental advocates have also taken legal action over the same law, but from the opposite direction. A coalition that included the Natural Resources Defense Council recently filed its own complaint, arguing that the final regulations were “weakened” versions of what the “landmark” law was intended to achieve.

WASHINGTON — Republican senators who have found themselves at odds with President Donald Trump in recent weeks will get the opportunity to address those tensions directly when he joins them for a party luncheon at the Capitol on Wednesday.

Ahead of the meeting, senators expressed hope Tuesday that the closed-door gathering would emphasize party unity rather than highlight divisions. The timing is notable, however, as Trump appears to have shifted his focus away from much of the Senate’s agenda with midterm elections approaching — instead championing his proof-of-citizenship voting bill, which currently does not have enough votes to clear the chamber.

Over the past month, tensions have mounted on multiple fronts. Trump abruptly blocked Senate Republicans from confirming one of his own nominees, asked them to help fund portions of a White House ballroom renovation project despite widespread opposition, and put them in the position of defending his Iran military action while many quietly questioned its strategy and ultimate goal.

Trump also contributed to erosion of his own Senate support by endorsing primary challengers against two Republican incumbents who had previously been reliable backers of his agenda — Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy. Both lost their primary races and have since become more openly critical of the president.

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration can move forward with its expanded program of rapid deportations of undocumented immigrants anywhere in the United States — not just in border areas.

A split three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down a lower court order that had temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s broader use of expedited removal. The decision marks a significant win for the Republican administration, which considers the expanded deportation tool central to its mass removal strategy.

Expedited removal is a process that allows the government to deport migrants quickly, without giving them the opportunity to appear before an immigration judge. Historically, it had only been used against migrants arriving by sea or those apprehended at or close to the border shortly after entering the country.

In January, Trump signed an order extending expedited removal to undocumented immigrants living anywhere across the U.S. Following that change, immigration agents began detaining migrants at courthouses where they had shown up for immigration proceedings, then removing them from the country within just a few days.

Civil liberties groups pushed back hard against the ruling. “The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” said Anand Balakrishnan, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. Balakrishnan, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs before the appellate panel, added that the decision “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”

DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, writing for the majority, concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the expanded program violated due process rights. In his opinion, Walker noted that immigrants were given notice of removal proceedings and had an opportunity to respond.

Walker and fellow majority judge Neomi Rao were both appointed to the bench by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Walker also addressed whether immigration officers were required to inform migrants that they could challenge expedited removal by proving they had lived in the United States for more than two years. He said no such requirement exists. “The constitutional requirement is notice of the action the government is taking and the grounds for it, plus an opportunity to respond,” Walker wrote, adding that the plaintiffs’ “contrary reasoning would require immigration officers to provide what amounts to legal advice.”

The two-judge majority vacated an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, who had placed the expanded deportation program on hold. Cobb, appointed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, had ruled in August that the administration failed to put in place adequate safeguards to prevent migrants from being wrongly deported under the expedited process.

Cobb had found that the plaintiffs presented “substantial evidence” that the expedited removal process carried a high risk of mistakes when applied on a broader scale. Her ruling referenced cases of individuals who had lived in the U.S. for well beyond two years but were still subjected to expedited removal orders.

Walker acknowledged in his opinion that such errors had occurred, but attributed them to “individual officers’ failure to follow the law — not defects in the written directives under review or the procedures they incorporate.”

The Trump administration has maintained that its expanded expedited removal program includes built-in protections against arbitrary deportations. In an October court filing, Justice Department attorneys described Cobb’s ruling as an “egregious error” that was stripping the administration of an “essential tool to combat the unprecedented surge of illegal immigration over the past few years” and its ability to efficiently deport potentially millions of people.

WASHINGTON — In a notable break from party leadership, the Republican-majority U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to pass legislation aimed at halting American military operations against Iran. However, the practical impact of the measure remains uncertain as President Donald Trump’s administration continues working toward a peace deal with the Islamic republic.

Senators approved the concurrent resolution by a 50-48 margin. The measure had already cleared the House of Representatives earlier this month, and the vote reflects mounting unease — even among some of Trump’s fellow Republicans — over a conflict that has grown increasingly unpopular since it began on February 28.

The vote fell mostly along party lines. Four Republicans crossed the aisle to vote in favor, joining nearly all Democrats in support. One Democrat voted against the resolution, and two Republicans were absent from the vote entirely.

The resolution instructs President Trump to withdraw U.S. armed forces from hostilities involving Iran. Despite its passage, the measure is widely expected to be little more than a symbolic gesture.

Under the terms of the 1973 War Powers Act, this type of concurrent resolution does not go to the White House for the president’s signature. The White House has already declared the legislation unconstitutional and, therefore, not binding on the administration.

Legal scholars say the question of whether the measure has any real teeth is far from settled and will likely end up before the courts. Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and senior editor of the legal publication Lawfare, explained the challenge ahead: “The executive branch will likely ignore it on constitutional grounds, and it’s not clear who might have standing to sue to enforce it.”

The Trump administration’s efforts to obtain detailed voter data from states have hit another legal wall, this time in Maryland.

U.S. District Court Judge Stephanie Gallagher last week threw out a Justice Department lawsuit that had sought access to Maryland’s voter registration records. Gallagher, who was appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump during his first term, wrote that she “joins every court to have addressed this issue” in concluding that the unredacted voter registration file “is not a record or paper that a state must produce to the United States.”

Thursday’s dismissal in Maryland makes nine states where the Justice Department has now lost similar legal battles. The department has filed lawsuits seeking detailed voter data — which includes dates of birth, home addresses, driver’s license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers — in 30 states and the District of Columbia.

Beyond Maryland, courts have also rejected the Justice Department’s attempts in Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. In Georgia, a judge dismissed a similar lawsuit because it was filed in the wrong city, leading the government to refile the case in a different location.

In the Maryland case, the Justice Department argued that an opinion from its own legal counsel’s office gave it the right to access the voter records under federal civil rights law. Judge Gallagher was not convinced, writing: “The Court will not interpret the (Civil Rights Act) contrary to its text simply because an office of the party advancing that interpretation has adopted it.”

Federal officials have argued they need the voter data to verify that states are following federal laws governing voter registration list maintenance, even though states already have their own detailed procedures in place. In the Rhode Island case, a Justice Department attorney acknowledged the department wanted the unredacted voter roll information so it could be shared with the Department of Homeland Security to verify citizenship status.

Earlier this week, a separate federal judge ruled that the Homeland Security program used to check citizenship — known as SAVE — violated federal privacy laws and was incorrectly flagging eligible voters as noncitizens. That judge ordered the program to stop being used.

Both Democratic and some Republican officials have pushed back against the Justice Department’s demands for detailed voter information, arguing the requests run afoul of state and federal privacy protections.

However, at least 13 states have either already turned over or committed to turning over their voter registration lists to the department, according to the Brennan Center for Justice and Associated Press reporting. Those states are Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

Tuesday marked the latest round of primary elections across four states — Maryland, New York, South Carolina, and Utah — as voters began selecting the nominees who will compete in November’s midterm elections.

The November midterms will decide which party controls both chambers of Congress, along with dozens of governorships and other state and local offices. Primary elections are being held throughout the spring and summer in all 50 states to determine who will appear on the general election ballot.

In Maryland, all eight congressional districts are holding contested primaries. The state typically leans left — only one of its districts is currently represented by a Republican — meaning primary winners often go on to win the general election. Gov. Wes Moore is seeking the Democratic nomination for a second term.

In New York, Mayor Zohran Mamdani has been working to shape the city’s congressional delegation through a series of endorsements, including in Districts 7, 10, and 13. In District 12, several Democrats are competing for the party’s nomination, among them Trump critic George Conway and Kennedy family member Jack Schlossberg.

In South Carolina, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and state Attorney General Alan Wilson are squaring off in a Republican runoff for the gubernatorial nomination. President Donald Trump, who had initially endorsed Evette earlier this month, said Friday that either candidate would make a good choice.

In Utah, voters are selecting congressional nominees under a newly drawn district map that created a more Democratic-friendly seat centered in Salt Lake City.

Here is the latest from Tuesday’s elections:

The newly redrawn Salt Lake City district — the result of a lengthy court battle over previous congressional boundaries — could prove critical for Democrats, who need to pick up only a handful of U.S. House seats in November to flip control of the narrowly divided chamber.

In the Democratic primary for that seat, former U.S. Rep. Ben McAdams, considered a moderate, is running against three candidates who are positioned further to his left. Progressive voters could divide their support among those challengers, potentially clearing the way for McAdams to return to Washington — or they could unite behind state Sen. Nate Blouin, Liban Mohamed, or Michael Farrell.

McAdams’ path to Congress has evolved since his first run in 2018, when he successfully convinced voters he was a sensible moderate capable of representing a swing district, defeating the Republican incumbent by a narrow margin. This time around, running in a heavily Democratic district, McAdams has pledged support for abortion rights and describes himself as only “moderate in tone” — a shift from his earlier self-described anti-abortion stance. His progressive opponents argue he is too conservative for the new district, a claim McAdams disputes, pointing to his record.

Republican U.S. Rep. Celeste Maloy is seeking reelection in a district that looks very different from the one that first sent her to Congress three years ago. She faces former state lawmaker Phil Lyman, who is running to her political right, in a redrawn district covering most of southern and eastern Utah. Maloy was first elected in a 2023 special election and won a full term in 2024. Lyman, who promoted false claims of fraud following the 2020 presidential election, is best known for organizing an illegal ATV ride to protest a federal land decision. A jury convicted him on misdemeanor charges, but Trump pardoned him in December 2020.

In New York, Mayor Mamdani made an appearance Tuesday morning outside a polling location on the Lower East Side alongside congressional candidate Brad Lander, a fellow Democrat. Mamdani described candidacies like Lander’s as “a referendum on whether the kind of leadership we have is the one that is serving the people of this city.”

“It’s not just a question of electing more Democrats. It’s a question of electing better Democrats,” the mayor said. He stressed the importance of putting “working people back at the heart of our politics” and championing freedom from fear and freedom of worship. “It’s time to bring some of those notions back so that working people can look at this party and see themselves, see their struggles, see their focuses,” Mamdani added.

The polling site appeared lightly attended, with voters trickling out every few minutes. One man leaving the building grumbled that the election had forced the cancellation of a lunch program for senior citizens. After the mayor departed, Lander recorded a video urging people to vote and reach out to friends. “We’re going to be calling people, knocking on doors, texting people all day long,” he said.

In New York’s 10th District, Rep. Dan Goldman — a former federal prosecutor who served as lead counsel during Trump’s first impeachment — is running for a third term in the heavily Democratic district covering parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn. He faces former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who has the backing of both Mayor Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Lander was acquitted earlier this month on charges stemming from a protest inside a building that houses an immigration court and has vowed to push back against the Trump administration, promising to “fight, not fold.”

A separate development involving Goldman emerged Monday when the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division announced an investigation into a Brooklyn coffee shop that said it would refuse service to the congressman over his support for Israel. In a since-deleted Instagram post, Poetica Coffee shared an image of Goldman in their Williamsburg location and wrote, in part: “We don’t serve racists, fascists, homophobes, genocide enablers or anyone in between. Too bad we didn’t recognize you right away, or we would have turned you away.” Goldman responded that he had purchased coffee from a barista who allowed his daughter to use the restroom and “could not have been nicer.” The top civil rights prosecutor at the Justice Department said on X that the coffee shop could face an enforcement action for discrimination. Goldman told CNN he was saddened by the post but did not believe it warranted a federal investigation. The coffee shop did not respond to requests for comment.

In New York’s 12th District, eight Democrats are running to replace retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler in one of Manhattan’s wealthiest House districts. Four candidates have dominated the race. Jack Schlossberg, a 33-year-old Kennedy family heir, and George Conway, a former Republican lawyer turned prominent Trump critic, represent a newer social media-driven style of campaigning. The two front-runners are Assemblymember Micah Lasher — a childhood magician turned political insider endorsed by Nadler himself — and Assemblymember Alex Bores, a former computer engineer whose artificial intelligence regulation bill made him the target of more than $7 million in ads from AI industry supporters. Bores has turned the spending against him into a rallying point, attracting other donors to counter the effort and positioning himself as a national symbol of resistance to big money in politics.

Further north in New York, Anthony Constantino — a Trump-backed “Make America Great Again” supporter and head of the custom sticker company Sticker Mule — is facing off against conservative state lawmaker Robert Smullen in a Republican primary. Constantino is known for his public overtures to the president, including placing a large “Vote for Trump” sign on top of one of his company’s buildings. Smullen, a former U.S. Marine Corps colonel and current state Assembly member, has broad support from state Republicans and presents himself as a steady, experienced choice for the House.

Back in Maryland, Republican voters are choosing a candidate they hope can unseat first-term Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, who has emerged as a rising figure in the Democratic Party. The GOP field ranges from ultra-moderate to staunchly conservative. Among the most closely watched contenders is Dan Cox, an attorney and former state delegate who ran unsuccessfully for governor four years ago. Cox has a photo of himself with Trump on his law firm’s website and has pledged to cut taxes and expand housing affordability programs if elected.

At one Maryland polling location at Bowie High School’s 9th Grade Center, turnout was light under overcast skies. Rodrick Greensword, 58, and his wife Natasha Greensword, 45, both voted for incumbent Gov. Moore in the Democratic gubernatorial primary and for Maryland State Delegate Adrian Boafo to be the Democratic nominee to fill the seat being vacated by Rep. Steny Hoyer. “We know the governor is governed by the pillars on which his culture is built,” Natasha said, adding that he will work for the people and make moral and humane choices. She said Boafo appeared to share the same values as Moore and Hoyer, and that Hoyer’s endorsement of Boafo also carried weight with her.

In Maryland’s most crowded primary, 24 candidates are on the Democratic ballot to succeed Rep. Hoyer. Among them is Harry Dunn, a former police officer who defended the U.S. Capitol during the January 6, 2021 riot. Dunn became an advocate for democratic institutions in the aftermath of that day. His campaign platform includes protecting democracy and holding Trump and his allies accountable for what he describes as misinformation and violence.

In South Carolina, Alan Wilson has served as state attorney general since 2011, building relationships with law enforcement officials across the state over more than a decade. Many of those officials endorsed his gubernatorial campaign. Since advancing to the runoff, Wilson has also received endorsements from three fellow Republicans who did not make it to the final round: state Sen. Josh Kimbrell and U.S. Reps. Ralph Norman and Nancy Mace. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas also endorsed Wilson, calling him “a proven conservative fighter who has spent years defending the Constitution.” Cruz traveled to South Carolina on Monday to appear at three campaign events with Wilson.

The South Carolina primary season was marked by months of sharp attacks between candidates competing for a rare open governor’s seat. Wilson acknowledged the tension but said the candidates’ relationship improved the more they encountered each other in person. “It’s easy to say things about people on social media, but when you start talking to them backstage, at forums and debates and things like that, you have conversations, you start to see a human being, not an avatar on a social media app,” he said. Wilson noted that he regularly checked in on Rep. Mace after her father died in April. After finishing last in the June 9 primary, Mace quickly endorsed Wilson, and Wilson said the two had “buried the hatchet.”

When the runoff was set, Lt. Gov. Evette wasted no time going on offense, calling Wilson a “career politician … who won’t take a stand and who does the political thing and not the right thing.” The crowd responded to Wilson’s name with boos. Wilson, for his part, did not mention Evette by name in his remarks and instead said he welcomed support from voters who had backed other candidates in the earlier primary.

After voting in Lexington on Tuesday, Wilson said it might take “a couple of weeks” for candidates on both sides to shake off the tension from a grueling year-long primary season. But he expressed confidence that “the Republican party’s going to coalesce around the candidate” ultimately nominated.

On the Democratic side in South Carolina, state Rep. Jermaine Johnson won his party’s gubernatorial nomination outright, defeating two other candidates. Charleston physician Annie Andrews also secured the Democratic nomination to challenge the incumbent U.S. senator. Democrats face a steep climb in the state — in the last governor’s race, the Republican incumbent won by nearly 18 percentage points, and Democrats have not won a gubernatorial race in South Carolina since 1998. No Democrat has won a U.S. Senate seat in the state in decades either.

ATLANTA — Georgia will continue using its controversial QR code vote-counting system during this fall’s midterm elections after state lawmakers approved legislation Tuesday that delays any changes to the system until 2028.

Both chambers of the Georgia Legislature voted on the measure, which also scaled back an earlier proposal that would have required hand recounts of ballots in certain contests. Leaders in the Republican-controlled Legislature said the plan to postpone changes to the voting equipment had the backing of Republican Governor Brian Kemp.

Kemp had called a special legislative session partly to deal with a July 1 deadline that had been set to eliminate the use of QR codes in the official vote-counting process. Lawmakers had previously passed a law establishing that deadline two years ago, but never managed to identify a replacement vote-tabulation method.

Some voting rights advocates had actually encouraged lawmakers to hold off on any changes to the QR code system, arguing there was not enough time before the midterms to roll out something new without risking confusion at polling locations. Georgia is considered a key political battleground state, with major statewide races for U.S. Senate and governor on the ballot this fall.

Last week, legislators appeared to have struck a deal on a bill to extend the QR code deadline, but Senate Republicans added an amendment over the weekend calling for a complete hand recount of the top two races on every ballot. That addition sparked strong pushback from Democrats.

The version of the bill that ultimately passed Tuesday narrowed the hand recount requirement to eight statewide offices, including governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and secretary of state. However, those hand counts would only be triggered when the winning margin is within half a percentage point, and only for races appearing as the first or second contest on a ballot. Races for U.S. Senate and U.S. House seats would not fall under the hand recount rules.

Democrats opposed including any hand recount provision in the bill. Studies have indicated that counting ballots by hand is more error-prone, more expensive, and tends to slow down the release of results. Still, the idea has gained momentum among Republican lawmakers in several states as former President Donald Trump continues to make unsubstantiated claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

Democratic state Rep. Debra Bazemore noted that Georgia already has election procedures in place that include audits and recount provisions in applicable situations.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate is gearing up for its tenth attempt to pass a war powers resolution that would put the brakes on American military involvement in Iran, as lawmakers keep a close eye on President Donald Trump’s push to wrap up a conflict his administration started without congressional approval — and now needs Congress to pay for.

Tuesday’s vote is not expected to produce a dramatically different result from the nine that came before it, all of which fell short. Still, a growing number of Republican members in both chambers have begun speaking out against both the war itself and the deal Trump reached with Iran to bring the fighting to a close. Democrats are pushing Republicans to join them in challenging the administration’s actions.

“Why is this vote different?” asked Sen. Tim Kaine, the Virginia Democrat who has spearheaded his party’s efforts on the issue.

Kaine argued that the current pause in hostilities — while Trump’s team works to solidify a fragile ceasefire — is exactly the right moment for Congress to step back and consider “what should the next chapter be.”

The vote is also happening as the Pentagon is asking Congress for roughly $80 billion, primarily to restock weapons and supplies used during the Iran conflict.

President Trump is expected to head to Capitol Hill this week to meet with Republican senators, while Vice President JD Vance has been traveling abroad to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program — one of the key reasons the administration cited for going to war in the first place.

According to one Republican senator who was granted anonymity to speak about internal discussions, Trump is not happy with GOP members who have criticized the deal he made with Iran.

The specifics of the Iran agreement are laid out in a Memorandum of Understanding that Trump signed last week, which kicks off a 60-day window for both sides to hammer out a broader deal aimed at ending Iran’s nuclear program.

A major sticking point for Republicans has been a $300 billion fund included in the agreement to help Iran rebuild — a figure far larger than the $1.7 billion that then-President Barack Obama returned to Iran as part of his administration’s 2015 nuclear deal.

“I believe President Trump is getting very poor advice on Iran,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said last week on his podcast after the deal became public.

Senate Democrats have been pushing for these votes almost continuously since the United States and Israel launched missile strikes against Iran on Feb. 28. Nearly every week Congress has been in session, Senate Democrats have brought forward war powers resolutions, but they have repeatedly come up short of the majority needed to pass in the closely divided chamber, where Republicans hold the majority.

Earlier this month, the House passed its own version of the resolution, with four Republicans crossing the aisle to vote alongside all Democrats — despite opposition from House Speaker Mike Johnson and the broader GOP leadership.

It is that House-passed resolution the Senate will take up Tuesday. While war powers resolutions don’t go to the president for his signature and don’t carry the weight of law, a successful vote would send a strong symbolic message from Congress and serve as a rebuke of the administration’s military decisions.

In previous votes, as many as four Republican senators have supported the war powers resolutions — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, has typically voted against the resolutions.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is also on Capitol Hill this week, requesting approximately $80 billion in supplemental funding to replenish military stockpiles following the Iran war — a request drawing scrutiny at a time when many Americans are struggling with high gas prices and rising costs of living.

Early Pentagon estimates put the cost of the war at $11.3 billion in just its first week, while outside experts have placed the total price tag at close to $100 billion.

The Defense Department’s funding request is part of a larger military spending push the White House is pursuing this year. The Trump administration is seeking $1.5 trillion in defense funding — a 50% increase — including $350 billion it wants included in a budget reconciliation package. Johnson and GOP leaders are working to pass that package without Democratic support, similar to how they pushed through Trump’s major tax cuts bill last year.

That 2025 tax cuts package also included a significant boost of around $175 billion for the military.

A new nationwide poll reveals that most Americans are skeptical about the value of President Donald Trump’s war with Iran, and a majority doubt that the recently signed peace agreement will bring lasting stability.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, which wrapped up on Monday after five days of data collection, found that only 24% of Americans believe the conflict with Iran was worth what it cost the country. Half of those surveyed said it was not worth it, and the remaining respondents said they were unsure.

The war also appears to be dragging down Trump’s standing with the public. His approval rating has dipped to 34%, tying the lowest point of his current term, which was previously recorded in an April survey.

When it comes to America’s global standing, just 23% of respondents — including only half of Republicans — believe the United States is now in a stronger position relative to Iran than it was before the fighting began. About 35% said the U.S. is actually in a weaker position, while the rest either weren’t sure or felt the situation was roughly unchanged.

Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian put their names to a preliminary agreement on June 17. The deal is designed to reopen oil and gas shipping routes that were frozen during the conflict and to ease U.S.-led economic pressure on Iran.

While the agreement has helped push global crude oil prices down, most Americans are still paying significantly more at the gas pump than they were before February 28, when U.S.-Israeli strikes launched the war. Iran struck back against those initial attacks, temporarily shutting down roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil trade and causing damage to energy infrastructure belonging to U.S. allies in the region.

Doubts about the durability of the peace deal are widespread. Some 63% of Americans said they consider it unlikely that the agreement will lead to a lasting peace between the two nations. That skepticism cuts across party lines — about half of Republicans and eight in ten Democrats said they don’t expect the deal to hold. Only 18% of Americans overall — including 34% of Republicans and just 10% of Democrats — believe lasting peace is a realistic outcome.

Trump entered his second term having campaigned on promises to bring down inflation and steer the country away from expensive foreign conflicts. He has long built his public image around his history as a businessman and television personality known for making deals.

His approval rating on economic issues, specifically the cost of living, stands at just 22% — near the lowest of his presidency and below the rating his Democratic predecessor held at the close of his time in office.

Trump began this term with a 47% approval rating, but his numbers have eroded amid persistent inflation and controversy surrounding his immigration enforcement efforts, which have included deadly clashes involving pro-immigration activists.

The decline in his popularity could create headaches for his Republican allies as they work to hold onto their congressional majorities in the November 3 midterm elections.

On immigration specifically, just 37% of Americans said they approve of how Trump has handled the issue — the lowest mark of his term and a drop from 40% in the previous Reuters/Ipsos survey.

The poll surveyed 1,262 adults across the United States and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that six people have been taken into custody for allegedly damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, a site that has become the center of growing controversy surrounding his administration’s costly and troubled renovation project.

In a post on social media, Trump claimed — without providing supporting evidence — that a “350 foot gash” had been made in the pool’s paint. The announcement comes as the administration faces a self-imposed deadline to address the failed renovation before the country’s 250th birthday celebration scheduled for next week.

Trump also said seven additional individuals were cited for causing damage to the pool. “It was purposefully and criminally done, and somebody had to work very hard, probably in the dark of night, to create such a condition,” Trump wrote in his post.

Neither the Park Police nor the Interior Department responded to media requests for comment on Trump’s claims.

The Associated Press independently confirmed only one arrest — a man who touched the already-deteriorating paint while federal crews work to address an algae problem in the water. The liner was installed as part of the more than $14 million project to restore the century-old pool, which included applying a new bottom coating in a color Trump personally chose and has called “American flag blue.”

Trump indicated that “some of the water” would be drained from the pool “either immediately before or after the Fourth of July, to do the permanent repair.” His post did not clarify the extent, timeline, or cost of that permanent fix.

National Guard troops and U.S. Park Police have been stationed around the pool’s perimeter after Trump insisted that vandals were to blame for the liner damage.

Trump originally promoted the renovation as an effort to clean up, beautify, and strengthen an iconic American landmark that he said had been allowed to fall into neglect and disrepair by previous administrations. He promised that the newly applied “American flag blue” coating — which he personally selected — would transform the pool into a sparkling centerpiece along the National Mall.

However, within weeks of Trump declaring the project complete ahead of Independence Day, the pool was overtaken by a bright green algae bloom that obscured the new coating. A section of liner measuring roughly 4 square feet was spotted partially floating in the pool last Friday. The Associated Press then observed additional pieces of liner in the water the following Monday.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department sent subpoenas to reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal demanding they appear before a grand jury — then pulled those subpoenas back, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

The Washington Post confirmed that one of its reporters was served a subpoena by the Trump administration as part of a wide-reaching crackdown on media leaks. That crackdown had already made headlines in January when FBI agents searched the home of a Washington Post reporter and took her electronic devices — an extraordinary and rarely used tactic. Reporters at The Wall Street Journal also received grand jury subpoenas, sources said, a move critics described as a direct threat to press freedom.

The reason the government chose to pull the subpoenas remains unclear, as does the specific news coverage the subpoenas were tied to. The withdrawal was first reported by The Washington Post on Tuesday and later confirmed by people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named because the law enforcement action was not public.

Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray sent a staff email, obtained by The Associated Press, revealing that the subpoena had targeted Ellen Nakashima, a well-known national security reporter who has covered topics including the Iran war and deadly U.S. military boat strikes in the Caribbean Sea.

A newspaper spokesperson responded with a firm statement: “The unwarranted subpoena of our reporter Ellen Nakashima – a clear violation of constitutionally guaranteed press freedom – was another sign of the government seeking to compel journalists to become instruments of its investigations. We will continue to stand fully behind the journalism of The Washington Post and fight all efforts by any administration that violate our First Amendment rights.”

A spokesperson for The Wall Street Journal did not reply to a request for comment sent Tuesday. The Justice Department also did not immediately respond to an email seeking a statement.

Mark Schoeff Jr., a reporter at CQ Roll Call and president of the National Press Club, described the effort to force reporters into grand jury testimony as “one of the most aggressive actions against a free and independent press in recent memory.”

“Reporters were one step away from being forced to participate in a criminal investigation because they were doing their jobs. That should alarm every American who values a free press,” Schoeff said in a written statement.

The Justice Department has long maintained internal guidelines on how it handles news media leaks, revising those policies over time. While the department has occasionally obtained phone records from individual journalists across different administrations to identify sources for national security stories, compelling a reporter to personally testify before a grand jury is extremely uncommon.

In April, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi reversed a policy from the previous Democratic administration that had shielded journalists from having their phone records secretly obtained during leak investigations — a practice long opposed by news organizations and press freedom advocates.

The reversal restored prosecutors’ ability to use subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants to pursue government employees who make unauthorized disclosures to the press. A memo issued alongside the reversal stated that members of the media are “presumptively entitled to advance notice” of such investigative steps, that subpoenas must be “narrowly drawn,” and that search warrants must include safeguards limiting intrusion into materials related to newsgathering.