Blog

Two Democratic candidates have locked in their spots for a special general election in California, competing to complete the remaining term of former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, who stepped down from Congress after facing sexual assault and misconduct allegations.

State Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a director with Bay Area Rapid Transit, earned the most votes Thursday from a large pool of Democratic and Republican candidates, earning their places in the August 18 special general election.

While Wahab held the lead in vote totals, Hernandez outlined her strategy going forward, saying her path to August involves “digging into the numbers, and going out to those areas where we know that we can secure votes.”

“I connect to voters, and that’s one thing that is definitely different than my opponent,” Hernandez added, emphasizing her focus on reducing costs for lower- and middle-class families. “We’re going to fight the good fight.”

The winner of the August special election will hold Swalwell’s seat through January, at which point the victor of the November regular general election will take over for a full two-year term. Notably, both Wahab and Hernandez also claimed the top two positions in the regular June 2 primary, meaning they are simultaneously competing in two separate races for California’s 14th Congressional District — a region that covers East Bay communities including Fremont, Hayward, and Livermore.

Republican candidates faced a steep climb in the heavily Democratic district. The third-highest vote-getter in the special election was also a Democrat — businesswoman and attorney Rakhi Israni Singh — who finished just behind Hernandez.

Whichever candidate prevails in August will likely gain a visibility advantage and several months of congressional experience to draw on during the November campaign.

Wahab, who serves as the Senate’s assistant majority leader and is a well-known figure in California politics, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday. Her campaign platform leans progressive, highlighting her record in office — including expanding social safety net programs, strengthening renter protections, championing social justice causes, and working to reduce red tape for small businesses.

Hernandez, a former mayor of the East Bay city of Dublin, has promoted many of the same goals but with a stronger emphasis on business-friendly policies. She has said she would “prioritize growing small businesses” to help lower costs, push for housing incentives, and work to reduce health insurance premiums by restoring insurance subsidies.

One of the two women will ultimately succeed Swalwell, who served seven terms in Congress before resigning in April and withdrawing from the California governor’s race. His departure followed a San Francisco Chronicle report alleging he sexually assaulted a woman on two separate occasions, including while she was employed by him. CNN subsequently reported that additional women accused him of sending inappropriate messages and explicit photos.

Swalwell, a Democrat, has consistently denied all of the allegations but stated that remaining in Congress would be unfair to the people he represented.

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers in the U.S. Senate are taking aim at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel budget, looking to cut off a portion of those funds unless the Pentagon delivers several investigations it has been sitting on — most notably one involving a deadly strike on an Iranian elementary school at the start of the U.S.-Israeli war.

The new restrictions were written into this year’s annual defense authorization bill, filed earlier this week. Under the legislation, no more than 25% of the defense secretary’s office travel funds can be used until Hegseth turns over what the bill calls “unredacted civilian harm investigations,” including a probe into the February 28, 2026, strike on the Minab school. Officials have said preliminarily that the United States was responsible for that strike, which has been attributed to outdated intelligence.

Congress, which is responsible for overseeing Pentagon operations, has not yet received the completed investigation. It is believed the report was finished last month.

Sen. Jack Reed, the leading Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, released a statement saying this year’s defense package “forces the Secretary to be more accountable to Congress and will prevent many errors of the past from being repeated in the future.”

The strike on the elementary school occurred on the opening day of the U.S. military campaign against Iran and resulted in the deaths of more than 165 people, a large number of them children. The school was located next to a Revolutionary Guard base, and the incident quickly became one of the most controversial moments of the conflict.

People familiar with the early findings, released in March, said outdated intelligence most likely caused the United States to carry out the missile attack. If confirmed, the strike would rank among the most deadly civilian casualty events tied to American military action in the past two decades.

Senators on both sides of the aisle inserted the travel fund restrictions into the National Defense Authorization Act as a way to compel the release of the findings. The bill text specifies that the cap applies until the secretary submits the investigations along with “all relevant supporting documents” covering multiple civilian harm incidents.

The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment.

Beyond the Iran school strike, senators are also calling for the Pentagon to release unedited video footage of U.S. military strikes on boats near Venezuela that were allegedly involved in drug trafficking.

The Pentagon has carried out a campaign lasting several months, striking vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. At least 211 people have been killed in those operations so far. The military has publicized some of the strikes by posting selected video clips on social media. In at least one case, people who survived an initial strike were later killed in follow-up attacks — something military law experts say conflicts with established rules of engagement. Lawmakers had pushed for similar video disclosures in last year’s defense bill as well.

Senators are additionally requesting three separate investigations into a set of strikes carried out in Yemen in April 2025, during the U.S. military’s campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels who had been targeting commercial shipping in the Red Sea.

Among the incidents under scrutiny is a strike on a port that left at least 70 people dead and more than 170 wounded, as well as a strike on a residential area in Sanaa — the rebel-controlled capital of Yemen — that hit a house and killed at least four people while wounding 16 others. Those casualty numbers were reported by the Houthis.

At the time of those strikes, U.S. Central Command declined to answer questions about them directly. After the port strike, the command said the operation “was not intended to harm the people of Yemen” and argued it was meant to “eliminate this source of fuel for the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists and deprive them of illegal revenue that has funded Houthi efforts to terrorize the entire region for over 10 years.”

All of the requested reports are to be delivered to the Armed Services committees in both the House and Senate.

The provisions are part of the National Defense Authorization Act, a wide-ranging 1,500-page policy document that sets the direction for the military in the coming year. The bill is put together with input from both Republicans, who hold the Senate majority, and Democrats in the minority — making it one of the rare pieces of legislation that routinely passes with bipartisan support.

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the measure last week, and the full Senate is expected to take it up for a vote.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A deepening political crisis is gripping the administration of Puerto Rico Gov. Jenniffer González, as fresh allegations of public corruption, government interference, and conflicts of interest continue to surface.

The latest figure caught up in the controversy is the governor’s chief of staff, Francisco Domenech, who is now the subject of a high-profile investigation. His situation follows the resignation last month of the island’s economic development chief, Sebastián Negrón, who publicly accused the administration of meddling in his agency’s operations. More than ten other officials from that agency — including its general counsel and finance chief — also stepped down, leaving the agency struggling in its mission to attract new investors to an island already burdened by chronic power outages and other persistent challenges.

Domenech holds a prominent role in the administration and also serves as executive director of Puerto Rico’s Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority.

On Wednesday, Domenech filed sworn statements with Puerto Rico’s Department of Justice and its Office of Government Ethics, accusing Negrón of corruption and conflicts of interest. The following day, he defended those actions in an interview with WIPR, a government-run television station.

Domenech explained that he waited until this week to act because he needed time to gather what he describes as evidence against Negrón — the same official the governor had previously praised as “a star” when she expressed regret over his departure in late May.

The allegations targeting Domenech are being examined by an independent state agency, and the matter has now reached the halls of the U.S. Congress. Federal lawmakers questioned the governor directly about the situation during a committee hearing Wednesday.

“How can Congress be assured that federal funds sent to Puerto Rico aren’t being misused or misplaced?” asked Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah during the hearing.

Gov. González responded by saying there is rigorous oversight in place for federal funds and insisted the allegations against Domenech are untrue. When Sen. Lee pressed her on why Negrón would make such accusations, she replied, “I don’t know what political motivations he may have.”

The controversy has also stirred tensions within the governor’s own party. Puerto Rico Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz, who belongs to the same pro-statehood party as González, called for Domenech’s resignation on Wednesday. Then on Thursday, Rivera Schatz offered legislative immunity to Domenech and anyone else “if they confess their crimes and produce results that eradicate corruption.”

Domenech’s interview with WIPR marked the first time he had spoken publicly since Negrón accused him of irregularities tied to contract processing and improper government interference. Negrón had also referred to the Justice Department and the Office of Government Ethics the findings of an internal investigation involving two government officials accused of meddling in the bidding process for a contract that included federal funds.

Domenech filed his sworn statements after alleged private text messages between him and Negrón became public earlier this week, sending shockwaves through the U.S. territory. Some of those alleged messages appear to show pressure being applied to find positions within the economic development agency for loyal supporters of González who had worked on her campaign. Domenech also claimed that Negrón was already aware he was under investigation.

In a statement released Thursday, Negrón flatly denied Domenech’s accusations against him.

“The most troubling aspect of what happened today is not the attack against me personally, but the message it sends to every public servant who witnesses irregularities and decides to report them,” Negrón said.

He also warned that businesses that have invested in Puerto Rico are being pulled into the scandal as collateral damage.

“Puerto Rico needs to strengthen the confidence of those who invest, produce, and generate opportunities, not turn them into collateral damage in personal or political disputes or vendettas,” Negrón said.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A number of Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, including key figures on national security, are speaking out against the Trump administration’s deal to stop the conflict with Iran — with some offering outright condemnation of its terms.

President Donald Trump signed a memorandum of understanding that kicks off a 60-day countdown to negotiate a permanent agreement on Iran’s nuclear future. While some Trump allies point out the deal isn’t finalized, the removal of economic sanctions on Iranian oil sales and a proposed $300 billion fund to rebuild Iran’s economy have sparked backlash from Republican lawmakers and conservative voices — including some who have previously been among Trump’s staunchest supporters.

Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee and has previously urged Trump to maintain pressure on Iran, expressed his unease. “President Trump has pursued peace through strength. I hope the intermediaries working on this deal are not undermining that objective,” he said.

Wicker also took aim at the reconstruction fund, saying, “The $300 billion fund for the reconstruction and economic development of Iran — though not funded by U.S. taxpayers — would make Iran’s payoff under President Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison.” He was referring to the Democratic administration’s Iran agreement that Trump walked away from during his first term in office.

The pushback from within Trump’s own party — while not universal — comes as the president is working to wrap up an unpopular war with midterm elections fewer than five months away, a period when Republicans are already facing challenges in protecting their slim congressional majorities.

Several of Wicker’s Senate colleagues, many of whom backed the war when it started, echoed his concerns. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a strong supporter of the war effort, put it bluntly: “History demonstrates giving billions of dollars to the theocratic lunatics who want to kill you is an exceptionally bad idea. And so I hope we don’t do that.”

Trump fired back on Truth Social, labeling his critics “fools” and calling the notion that the United States would pay $300 billion to Iran “fake news.” The interim agreement does include a $300 billion postwar reconstruction fund, though the source of that money remains unclear. Trump echoed Wicker’s point that American taxpayers would not be footing the bill. “All there is for the U.S. is Success, Lower Oil Prices, and Victory,” Trump posted.

As the memorandum was formally transmitted to Congress on Thursday, multiple Republican senators said it raised more questions than it answered, particularly around its financial terms. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and his South Dakota colleague Sen. Mike Rounds said they were looking for answers on how financial incentives to Iran would be enforced and how conditions against funding terrorism would be upheld, because “right now, a lot of money’s going to go to Iran,” Rounds noted.

Not all Republicans were critical. Some who align more closely with Trump’s America First approach were willing to give the president room to work. Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas highlighted what he called a crucial provision in the memorandum, writing on social media that it “lays out a key commitment that strengthens regional security and ensures that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.”

Louisiana GOP Senate candidate John Fleming, who is courting Trump’s most loyal base ahead of a June 27 Republican primary runoff, argued that the deal carries an implicit warning. He said Trump has signaled the U.S. would strike Iran again if it fails to honor the agreement. “The criticism may be worthy if there isn’t follow-through,” Fleming said. “He’s using the speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick in offering them plenty of help, but at the same time he’s got that stick ready if they don’t live up to their agreements.”

Even some of Trump’s most devoted supporters in conservative media have sounded the alarm. Conservative radio host Mark Levin suggested the administration should slow things down and wait until after the midterms before finalizing anything with Iran. “We should consider slow-walking the enemy, building up our munitions, our oil reserves, get the price of gasoline down, get through the midterms, then knock them out,” he wrote on social media. He argued the current approach appeared to be “rushing to a deal, building up their oil industry” while agreeing to transfer billions of dollars to the Iranian government.

Right-wing social media influencer Laura Loomer, a long-time Trump supporter who has also promoted conspiracy theories, was even more pointed in her criticism, posting on X: “Who is giving the President tainted, pro-Islamic intel?”

Despite their varying relationships with Trump, the critics share a fundamental distrust of the Iranian regime. Former Vice President Mike Pence, whose bond with Trump was severely damaged following the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, weighed in as well. “It does smack of the kind of appeasement,” Pence said. “Bottom line. I don’t trust the Iranians.”

Sen. Tammy Duckworth fired off a letter Thursday to the head of the Federal Aviation Administration, asking the agency to hold the line against any potential pressure from President Donald Trump to greenlight his proposed triumphal arch without fully weighing aviation safety risks.

Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat who serves as the top Democrat on the Senate’s aviation subcommittee, is raising alarms about Trump’s plan for a 250-foot (76-meter) arch in the nation’s capital. The structure, which Trump wants built to mark the country’s 250th anniversary, would stand more than twice the height of the Lincoln Memorial.

In her letter, Duckworth expressed concern that the FAA’s early review of the arch appeared to have been rushed. She questioned whether Trump or members of his White House staff are “already improperly pressuring FAA to prioritize rubberstamping Trump’s vanity arch over public safety.”

A National Park Service preliminary report, which Duckworth referenced in her letter to FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford, indicated that officials are aiming to finish the massive structure within three years. That timeline could require construction crews to work up to 20 hours a day, with cranes reaching as high as 320 feet (106 meters).

The FAA said it plans to respond to Duckworth directly.

A central concern in the letter is the arch’s location near the congested airspace surrounding Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport — the same airport where a U.S. Army helicopter and a commercial airliner collided last year, claiming 67 lives.

That disaster “underscores the consequences of inadequate coordination and the need for extreme caution when evaluating any new obstruction in this environment,” Duckworth wrote. She added that the FAA must be “firm in rejecting any improper or irresponsible pressure” from Trump regarding the project.

The FAA had previously stated that an early feasibility review found “no adverse impacts to operations” at the nearby airport, though it noted the top of the arch would require red obstruction lighting, which it described as “a common safety tool.” The agency said a more thorough study, conducted in partnership with the National Park Service, would follow.

Duckworth also raised a cultural concern, arguing that the arch would cut across the historic visual corridor between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, which she said would “offensively desecrate the hallowed symbolism” of that view.

WASHINGTON — When President Donald Trump unveiled tall new flagpoles he had installed on both the North and South Lawns of the White House last summer, he offered reporters a candid reflection on how much things had changed since his first time in office.

“You guys were after me,” he told members of the press. “I was the hunted. And now I’m the hunter.”

That moment serves as the centerpiece of a new book called “Regime Change,” written by New York Times journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. The book chronicles the first year of Trump’s second term and argues that his time out of the White House actually made him a more forceful president upon his return in 2025.

The book’s central argument — one Trump himself embraces — is that losing the 2020 election ultimately strengthened his second term. Had he won then, he might have faced significant resistance from within his own administration, the lingering effects of the coronavirus pandemic, the inflation that followed, and a Congress controlled by Democrats. None of those obstacles have stood in his way this time around.

Trump continues to falsely assert that he won the 2020 election.

Among the book’s more intriguing revelations is that Trump has repeatedly asked aides whether Vice President JD Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio would be the better person to succeed him. Some donors favored Rubio, and certain aides felt that Trump and Rubio had stronger personal chemistry. But Trump also expressed admiration for Vance’s sharpness in television interviews, especially difficult ones.

Trump is described as being impressed by Rubio’s heritage as the son of Cuban immigrants. In one telling anecdote, after Trump filled the Oval Office with gold decorations, someone asked whether a future president might reverse all those changes. Trump’s reply: “Cubans love gold.”

Despite the competition between Rubio and Vance for Trump’s favor, the two men are reportedly friends. One example the authors provide: Rubio sent Vance a text message offering to campaign alongside him after Vance’s remarks about “childless cat ladies” generated controversy. Rubio wanted to show public solidarity.

Even as both men position themselves ahead of a potential 2028 presidential run, Trump shows little sign of stepping aside. He frequently references the two and a half years remaining in his term — a timeline that runs to Inauguration Day 2029 — signaling that he has no intention of letting potential successors steal his spotlight.

That dynamic played out vividly during an Oval Office meeting that included Trump, Vance, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. According to the book, Trump produced “Trump 2028” baseball caps, prompting Jeffries to gesture toward Vance and ask, “How does he feel about that?” Trump replied, “Ah, he’s fine. He doesn’t care,” before adding, “We’re giving him a little more training.” Vance’s response was simply: “No comment.”

The book also reveals the level of alarm inside the White House over the release of files related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles called a crisis response meeting in the Situation Room. Vance reportedly suggested having friendly interviewer Tucker Carlson conduct a sit-down with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend who remains imprisoned. The disclosure of what was discussed in that secure setting has since raised questions about whether audio recordings were made inside a classified area of the White House.

On a more personal note, Haberman and Swan reveal that Trump and first lady Melania Trump sleep in separate bedrooms — making them the first presidential couple to do so since Richard and Pat Nixon. The authors note that Bill and Hillary Clinton briefly slept apart when his affair with Monica Lewinsky became public. Melania sleeps in the Executive Residence’s traditional master bedroom, known as Room 219, while the president occupies Room 220, located next to the Yellow Oval on the second floor.

Trump reportedly decorated his bedroom with gold accents and other personal touches, carrying some items in himself from a hallway where Melania had previously chosen the decor during his first term. Because the first lady was not in Washington frequently at the start of the second term, she was not around to intervene. One item relocated was a gold-leaf-framed mirror from the Queen’s Bedroom redesign — it ended up outside on the Colonnade near the Oval Office, where it is now used for selfies.

Melania had overseen a renovation of the Rose Garden during the first term and resisted Trump’s desire to pave it over and replace it with a patio resembling his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. The president ultimately backed down on the roses, though surrounding grass was covered. She lost a bigger fight, however: the East Wing was torn down to make room for a $400 million ballroom Trump is constructing.

While Trump began his second term making public statements about acquiring Greenland and turning Canada into the 51st state, the book says he was privately more focused on Venezuela. He even floated the idea of Venezuela becoming a U.S. state where he could appoint the governor.

Trump initially allowed special envoy Ric Grenell to lead negotiations with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. But Rubio eventually argued that Maduro was simply running out the clock, hoping to outlast the Trump administration until 2029. Grenell was sidelined as a result.

Rubio told White House officials that Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, was corrupt but capable of maintaining order. On the night U.S. forces entered Venezuela and removed Maduro from power, Rubio spoke directly with Rodríguez, telling her she needed to stabilize the country and prevent mass migration and violence. Rodríguez has since remained in charge of Venezuela following Maduro’s ouster.

In a March 2026 interview with the authors, Trump described having a “love affair” with Venezuela, tracing it back to his years running the Miss Universe pageant and the country’s frequent representation by beautiful contestants. That affection did not extend to Ukraine, which Trump said he did not like — except for its women, who he noted had won Miss Universe multiple times.

The book closes with Trump recounting a story about a historian — introduced to him by golfer Gary Player — who reportedly told the president he was the most powerful person the world had ever seen, surpassing even Alexander the Great, William the Conqueror, and Napoleon. Trump promoted the story himself on social media but admitted during the interview that he could not remember the historian’s name. A White House staffer later told the authors the truth: the person Gary Player had actually been speaking about was his longtime caddy.

WASHINGTON — The newly refinished Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is showing troubling signs of failure, with paint peeling away from the pool’s bottom and drifting into algae-tinted water — and it’s been less than two weeks since President Donald Trump declared the project done.

Trump announced on June 6 that renovation work on the historic pool was complete. But by Tuesday, workers were already pouring hydrogen peroxide into the water to fight an algae bloom that had turned the pool an unexpected shade of green rather than the intended dark blue. Now, peeling paint has added to the growing list of problems at the site.

The pool’s makeover was part of a sweeping Trump administration effort to redesign the nation’s capital. The renovation was carried out under a $14.7 million no-bid contract. The broader initiative also includes plans to tear down the East Wing of the White House to make room for a new ballroom and to construct a large arch near Arlington National Cemetery.

The National Park Service, which manages the National Mall where the pool is located, did not respond to a request for comment. Atlantic Industrial Coatings, the Virginia-based company that performed the renovation work, also had not responded as of the time of reporting.

People visiting the pool on Thursday were not shy about sharing their disappointment. Robert Dale, who traveled from Edwards, Colorado, told Reuters what he thought as he surveyed the scene: “I want my money back after seeing this. I think our resources could be used a lot better elsewhere. I think this reflecting pool was beautiful before, before all this attention.”

The Trump administration has faced pushback for bypassing traditional planning and preservation processes in its capital renovation efforts. Administration officials have brushed off that criticism as politically motivated, pointing instead to the president’s background as a real estate developer as a reason to trust his design judgment.

Separately, lawmakers have raised concerns about Trump’s decision to accept a $400 million aircraft from Qatar intended to serve as Air Force One. National security experts have cautioned that making the plane safe for presidential use would require significant upgrades — including measures to prevent eavesdropping, new communications systems, and missile-defense technology — all of which would demand considerable time and expense.

Local police departments and cities across the country could be in line for a share of more than a billion dollars in federal grant money — but accepting those funds comes with a significant condition.

The U.S. Department of Justice is distributing the grants to law enforcement agencies nationwide, with one key requirement attached: any agency that receives the money must work alongside federal immigration enforcement authorities.

The move ties federal financial support for local policing directly to cooperation with immigration operations, a condition that could put some departments in a difficult position, particularly in communities that have adopted policies limiting local involvement in federal immigration matters.

WASHINGTON — Over $350 million drawn from President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and spending cuts legislation has been quietly funneled toward White House security — and Democrats are charging that the money is being used to help pay for the president’s new ballroom project, despite his repeated promises that taxpayers wouldn’t foot the bill.

The funds were directed by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget late on a Friday, pulled from two accounts originally set aside to give the U.S. Secret Service additional resources for hiring and training following last year’s assassination attempts on the president. That’s according to Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. The move came just days after Congress rejected a $1 billion White House funding request that had been attached to a Homeland Security bill Trump signed into law, and as the ballroom project faces ongoing legal challenges.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, whose committee originally drafted the security funding language, said Thursday he had no knowledge of where the money was being directed.

“The president said that it was all going to be paid for with private money,” said Grassley, R-Iowa. “And that’s what the country expects.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the leading Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, went further, calling Trump’s actions potentially illegal.

“After repeatedly telling the American people that zero taxpayer dollars would be spent on his gold-plated ballroom boondoggle, now Trump appears to be using a smoke and mirrors tactic,” Merkley said in a statement.

“Trump has proven that he can’t be trusted to follow the law,” Merkley added. “He only cares about wasting taxpayer money on his vanity projects.”

The president has run into obstacles in his effort to construct the ballroom on White House grounds, which required demolishing the historic East Wing to make room for it. During a visit to the construction site last month, Trump described the development as a “gift” to the American people, maintaining it would be covered entirely through private donations — a claim that has itself drawn scrutiny from ethics watchdogs who have raised concerns about potential corruption and conflicts of interest.

Congress shot down the administration’s $1 billion funding request for the project last month after attempts to attach it to a Homeland Security spending bill were rejected by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. The request became a political liability at a time when many Americans are struggling with the high cost of living.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the total cost of the project has grown to $600 million, according to a summary prepared by the contractor, with taxpayers covering more than half of that amount. Roll Call was the first to report on the newly redirected security funds.

At the heart of the dispute is a disagreement over what portion of the White House project is truly about security — including underground bomb shelters and a medical facility — versus what portion is tied to the president’s promised 999-seat ballroom above ground.

A White House spokesman pushed back on the criticism, saying Trump and private donors are contributing roughly $400 million toward the ballroom, and that the involvement of the Secret Service had been disclosed from the start of the project.

“The East Wing Modernization Project is inextricably tied to the security of the President, the White House grounds and the certain security infrastructure assets,” White House spokesman Davis R. Ingle said in a statement.

Ingle also pointed to events from the past weekend — including an alleged plot targeting the UFC Freedom 250 event held at the White House — as evidence of why the project is necessary.

“President Trump and generous American patriots are funding the ballroom to the tune of approximately $400 million, which will be a secure and appropriate venue for Presidents for generations to come,” he said.

Government lawyers have argued in court that the project incorporates critical security measures designed to defend against threats including drones and missiles. Court documents filed by the White House describe the East Wing project as “heavily fortified,” featuring bomb shelters, military installations, and a medical facility beneath the ballroom. The Secret Service told senators last month that $220 million of the original $1 billion request would go toward hardening the ballroom addition with bulletproof glass, drone detection systems, and chemical protection technology.

The remaining funds, according to a document shared with Senate Republicans, would cover other security upgrades — including $180 million for a new, “long overdue” visitor screening facility at the White House.

The redirection of these funds is expected to intensify an ongoing debate in Congress over the separation of powers and whether the president is appropriately using money that lawmakers designated for specific purposes.

The funds originate from Trump’s major tax cuts and spending reductions bill, which the president signed into law last summer. That legislation included more than $1 billion earmarked for Secret Service resources, covering “personnel, training facilities, programming, and technology; and performance, retention, and signing bonuses.”

That provision drew no opposition at the time it was written — even though Democrats voted against the broader bill. Democrats acknowledged they did not attempt to strip out or challenge that particular section of the legislation.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the authority to allocate federal funds rests exclusively with Congress, covering operations across the executive and judicial branches. While the president can sign or veto spending bills, once funding is enacted into law, it is largely required to be used as Congress intended.

ATLANTA — Just one day after shelving plans to redraw the state’s congressional and legislative district maps, Georgia lawmakers moved Thursday toward delaying any action on the state’s controversial vote-counting system as well.

The result would leave Georgia’s current ballot-tallying method — one that depends on a QR code printed on paper ballots — in place heading into the November election. Some advocates for voting rights said they actually preferred that outcome, worried that last-minute changes could create confusion at polling locations.

Republican Governor Brian Kemp had placed both redistricting and the election system on the agenda for a special legislative session. On Wednesday, the first day of that session, lawmakers shot down his push for redistricting ahead of the 2028 election. Their concern: acting too hastily following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that weakened federal Voting Rights Act protections for minority voters.

On Thursday, the focus shifted to the QR code voting system. Legislators moved forward with a bill that would extend a looming deadline rather than replace the system outright.

The QR code system has been a flashpoint in recent years. President Donald Trump claimed — without providing evidence — that Georgia’s voting machines deleted or switched votes during the 2020 election, which he narrowly lost to Democrat Joe Biden in the state.

Two years ago, the legislature passed a law banning the use of QR codes for the official vote count after July 1 of this year. However, no alternative vote-counting method was ever put in place. Instead of developing a new system during the special session, lawmakers now appear ready to simply push the deadline back.

The bill advanced by state senators Thursday would move the July 1 cutoff to January 1, 2028. It would also establish a committee charged with developing recommendations for “specifications, standards, and requirements” for a new voting system.

Republican state Sen. Max Burns, who co-authored the bill, explained the reasoning to fellow lawmakers: “We feel that this gets us into a position to clarify and provide certainty to our election officials and to our electorate.”

County election officials across Georgia have been receiving conflicting guidance about how to handle vote counting if the legislature failed to act on the deadline or introduce a replacement system.

Burns said the governor’s office and House leadership had both agreed to the Senate’s approach. The bill cleared two committees Thursday, with a full Senate vote scheduled for Saturday.

Georgia’s voting machines have long been the target of conspiracy theories. Manufacturer Dominion Voting Systems has fought those claims aggressively in court. At the same time, election integrity advocates have raised separate concerns, arguing the machines could be vulnerable to hacking and that voters have no way to verify their choices are accurately recorded since QR codes cannot be read by the human eye.

President Trump singled out these machines — which are also used in at least some counties across more than a dozen other states — in his first executive order on elections after beginning his second term in January 2025. That order has since been blocked by multiple courts and is currently not being enforced.

Under the proposed legislation, the newly created committee would have until January 31, 2027, to submit its recommendations. State lawmakers would then be responsible for securing funding, purchasing, and putting a new system into operation in time for the 2028 election cycle.

The nine-member committee would include three people appointed by the governor, three members from the Senate, and three from the House.

New Jersey Republican Congressman Tom Kean Jr. is scheduled to make his return to Capitol Hill on June 30, following a months-long absence tied to an unspecified medical condition. A political consultant for Kean confirmed the date on Thursday.

Since his last House vote on March 5, Kean has been absent from both Washington and his home district, missing over 100 votes and generating widespread speculation about his condition and political future. His district is considered a key battleground seat heading into this November’s midterm elections.

Harrison Neely, a political consultant for the congressman, shared the news in a text message: “Congressman Kean is eager to return to in person work on June 30 and resume a full schedule. He plans to be fully transparent regarding the nature of his health issue and you should expect to hear from him in person June 30th.”

Kean’s office has confirmed he intends to seek reelection and will face Democratic Navy veteran Rebecca Bennett in what is expected to be one of the state’s most closely contested races this fall. The seat has changed party hands in each of the last two midterm cycles — Kean won it in 2022 over Democrat Tom Malinowski, who had previously taken it from Republican Leonard Lance in 2018.

Back in April, Kean’s social media account acknowledged he had been dealing with a personal medical matter, with his doctors expecting a full recovery. He has not publicly disclosed what the condition is. On Primary Day earlier this month, President Donald Trump threw his support behind Kean’s reelection bid, making no mention of the congressman’s extended absence. That same day, Kean released a statement saying he anticipated returning to work within a few weeks.

Kean carries a deep legacy of public service. His family’s political roots stretch back roughly 250 years to the founding of the country, when one of his ancestors became New Jersey’s first leader following independence. His great-grandfather served as a senator, his grandfather was a congressman, and his father, Tom Kean Sr., served two terms as governor of New Jersey.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Janeese Lewis George claimed victory Tuesday in Washington, D.C.’s Democratic mayoral primary, setting the stage for a likely confrontation with the Trump administration over its ongoing efforts to limit the city’s self-governance.

Because Washington is a heavily Democratic city, Lewis George is considered the strong favorite heading into November’s general election. Her win means she will succeed moderate Muriel Bowser, who chose not to seek a fourth term.

Lewis George will not be alone in facing off against federal pressure. Robert White Jr., who won the Democratic primary for the district’s congressional delegate seat, is also expected to take a tougher stance against the Trump administration than his predecessor. Both candidates campaigned on promises to more forcefully resist federal moves affecting the city, including the ongoing deployment of the National Guard in what has been described as an open-ended crime-fighting mission.

Speaking to a crowd of enthusiastic supporters Tuesday night, Lewis George made her intentions clear: “As mayor, I will work with anyone who makes D.C. safer, but I will also stand up to Trump.”

Washington operates under limited autonomy, with federal officials retaining considerable authority over local matters — including the right to approve the city’s budget and laws passed by the D.C. Council.

President Donald Trump moved further into that space last year, briefly taking control of the city’s police force and launching a law enforcement surge that included National Guard troops. His efforts to shrink the federal government also hit the capital region hard, eliminating thousands of jobs. Trump has also been leaving his mark on the city’s physical landscape, renovating well-known landmarks and attaching his name and image to buildings.

Lewis George, a member of the D.C. Council who describes herself as a democratic socialist, was already on Trump’s radar before the primary results came in. Last week, the president threatened to place the district under direct federal control if she won the race.

“Maybe we’d take back Washington, run it on the federal basis,” Trump said.

Her main challenger, former D.C. Council member Kenyan McDuffie, formally conceded the race Thursday and confirmed he had reached out to Lewis George to congratulate her.

“While the final certification process will continue, it is clear that the voters have chosen a different path,” McDuffie said in a written statement. He extended his best wishes to Lewis George for the general election and encouraged his own supporters to stay engaged.

“The campaign may be over, but the work of building a safer, more affordable, more prosperous city continues,” he said.

Lewis George, 38, is a third-generation Washington native. She has promised to overturn an executive order issued by the city’s police chief that allows local law enforcement to work alongside Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, arguing the order “hurt the trust of our community.”

She has also pledged to use every tool available under the city’s home rule agreement to push back against what she characterized as authoritarian interference in local governance.

“We have legal tools we can use to fight back,” she told The Associated Press ahead of the vote. “And we know that when we have gone to court, we’ve won.”

Outgoing Mayor Bowser faced ongoing criticism from residents who felt she was too accommodating toward the Trump administration. Meanwhile, Eleanor Holmes Norton — the district’s 18-term, 89-year-old congressional delegate — also drew criticism from those who believed she was not doing enough to counter the administration’s actions against the city.

Beyond the federal fight, Lewis George has made the cost of living a central issue. Her platform includes rent assistance, eliminating below-minimum-wage pay for tipped workers, and reining in high utility costs.

Tuesday’s primary was notable for several reasons: it was the first time in a generation that D.C. voters chose both a new mayor and a new congressional delegate in the same election. It was also the city’s first election conducted using ranked choice voting.

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced Thursday that she is dropping a wide-ranging criminal case that accused former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and others of attempting to reverse President Donald Trump’s 2020 election defeat in the state.

This marks the third fake elector case brought by a state to be dismissed. However, the Democratic attorney general says she intends to bring the matter before a new grand jury in an effort to obtain a fresh indictment.

The dismissal is a calculated legal move designed to sidestep a Friday deadline for initiating new grand jury proceedings. That deadline came about after Mayes lost an appeal earlier this month — an appeal that was triggered when defense attorneys successfully argued that the original grand jury was never shown the relevant portions of the law governing how presidential election results are officially certified.

Courts have also thrown out similar cases in Michigan and Georgia. A special prosecutor additionally dropped a federal case in late 2024 that had charged Trump with conspiring to undo the 2020 election results. Those cases collapsed following Trump’s 2024 victory over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris. Fake elector-related cases are still active in Nevada and Wisconsin.

In Nevada, charges were dismissed in 2024 after a judge determined that Clark County — the state’s most populated county and home to Las Vegas — was the wrong location to try the case. The case was later refiled in Carson City, Nevada’s capital.

The Arizona case had been largely at a standstill for more than a year while the attorney general pursued the failed appeal.

Defense attorneys in Arizona argued that the law permitted multiple slates of electors to be submitted to Congress when results were under dispute. Federal law was updated in 2022 to clarify that each state may only submit one slate of electors and that the state’s governor must sign off on the submission.

Joe Biden carried Arizona in 2020 by a margin of 10,457 votes.

The attorney general has faced significant obstacles in pursuing the case. It was filed nearly three and a half years after the 2020 election and involves complex conspiracy charges against 18 defendants. A dozen motions to dismiss filed by defense attorneys have repeatedly slowed the proceedings.

The original judge assigned to the case stepped aside in late 2024 after an email emerged showing he had encouraged fellow judges to publicly push back against criticism of Harris’ presidential campaign. The judge who took over then ordered the case returned to a grand jury.

Among the 18 Arizona defendants, two were former Trump administration aides, five were attorneys who worked for Trump, and 11 were Republicans who signed a document falsely claiming Trump had won Arizona.

Three of the defendants have already resolved their legal situations, including one who entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge. The remaining defendants pleaded not guilty. Some have stated they signed the certificate believing it might be needed if Trump prevailed in ongoing court challenges before Congress’ January 6 deadline to count electoral votes.

The case has also become an issue in Arizona’s attorney general election, with both Republican candidates challenging Mayes publicly stating they would drop the charges if elected to the position.

WASHINGTON — Several top-ranking U.S. diplomats assigned to the Organization of American States have either resigned or been let go following disputes with the Trump-appointed ambassador overseeing the mission, according to six sources with knowledge of the situation.

The OAS, founded in 1948, serves as the Western Hemisphere’s primary multilateral forum, addressing regional security, human rights, democracy, and economic development. The Washington-based organization has played a key role in resolving disputed elections across Latin America and has frequently united U.S. allies in speaking out against human rights abuses in authoritarian nations such as Cuba and Nicaragua.

In recent months, the U.S. mission to the OAS has experienced a significant wave of departures. According to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters, those who have left include the deputy chief of mission, the chief of staff, a senior political counselor, and at least one additional foreign service officer.

Together, those individuals represented the bulk of the mission’s senior leadership. The U.S. mission typically operates with only a small number of full-time foreign service officers, meaning the departures effectively eliminated its entire experienced upper tier.

The shake-up is the latest sign of how the Trump administration is remaking the U.S. diplomatic workforce, frequently by pushing out veteran career diplomats. It also highlights the administration’s broader skepticism toward multilateral institutions, even in strategically significant areas like Latin America, where the White House has been directing increased attention and resources.

Sources say a number of the departing diplomats had conflicts with the current ambassador, Leandro Rizzuto Jr., a personal friend of President Donald Trump. Many career officials described his management approach as confrontational and unpredictable. Earlier this year, Rizzuto reportedly referred to staff members who raised concerns directly with State Department leadership as “rats,” according to two of the sources.

In a conversation with Reuters, Rizzuto disputed characterizations of his leadership style, though he confirmed that several senior diplomats had recently left — some fired, some voluntarily. He said his goal is to redirect the OAS away from its traditional emphasis on human rights and democracy and toward economic matters, a shift he acknowledged has caused friction with some State Department personnel. He did not address the “rats” remark in a follow-up email.

“I’m a business guy, so the bottom line is I want results, and without making it personal, if you can’t do the job, I’d rather you have another job,” Rizzuto told Reuters.

The State Department did not reply to a detailed list of questions submitted by Reuters. The senior diplomats who departed either could not be reached, did not reply to requests for comment, or declined to speak when contacted.

Rizzuto maintained that those who left have been replaced by strong performers.

Trump officials have publicly questioned whether the OAS remains relevant, as they have with most multilateral bodies. At the same time, they have indicated the organization could demonstrate its value by taking on a larger role in hemispheric security and law enforcement.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has moved aggressively to reassert U.S. influence in Latin America, most notably through a military operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuela’s president and helped install more U.S.-friendly leadership in the region.

Rizzuto, the billionaire heir to a cosmetics fortune, was previously nominated during Trump’s first term to serve as ambassador to Barbados and two other Caribbean nations. That nomination collapsed after it emerged that he had reposted conspiracy theories online, including a false claim that Republican Senator Ted Cruz’s wife was involved in a secret plan to merge the governments of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. He was subsequently appointed to the top diplomatic role in Bermuda — a post that does not require Senate confirmation.

During Trump’s second term, Rizzuto was confirmed as ambassador without major controversy and assumed the position late last year.

After taking the post, Rizzuto arranged for a large oil painting of himself to be hung in the main entrance of the U.S. mission to the OAS, according to three of the sources. Rizzuto did not respond to an inquiry about the painting.

In the interview, Rizzuto said he personally removed his deputy chief of mission and chief of staff, while his political counselor chose to resign. He described himself as “the fairest guy” and said he champions employees who put in genuine effort.

The sources, however, rejected the notion that the departing State Department staff were underperforming or indifferent.

The State Department’s workforce has been dramatically reshaped under the Trump administration, a transformation that critics argue has come at the expense of experienced career public servants. Several hundred officers were let go in mass layoffs last year, and in December the administration removed nearly 30 career ambassadors, leaving many of those positions unfilled.

PHILADELPHIA — A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration has the right to replace a slavery exhibit located at George Washington’s historic residence in Philadelphia, overturning an earlier court order that had required the National Park Service to put the display back in place.

The three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its unanimous decision, finding that a lower court judge had incorrectly interpreted contract claims made by the city of Philadelphia involving Independence National Historical Park. The panel noted that Philadelphia having the legal standing to bring a lawsuit did not automatically mean its arguments were valid. The appeals court also offered praise for the planned replacement installation, describing it as being “full of historical context” — a characterization that stands in contrast to concerns raised by historians and city officials who say the new content appears to downplay or whitewash the history of slavery.

The ruling arrives approximately one week after a federal judge in Massachusetts ordered the Trump administration to restore historical sites that had been altered under a presidential executive order. That order directed the nation’s museums, parks, and landmarks to remove elements that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.” The federal government has requested a pause on the Massachusetts ruling while it pursues an appeal.

It remained unclear Thursday how the Massachusetts decision might affect the situation at the President’s House Site in Philadelphia. Work to restore roughly half of the large outdoor exhibit panels had been completed before coming to a halt in February.

Attorneys representing Philadelphia, as well as spokespeople for the Department of Interior and the National Park Service, had not responded to requests for comment as of early Thursday.

Philadelphia filed its lawsuit in January after the National Park Service removed the explanatory panels from the President’s House Site. That location is where George and Martha Washington lived alongside nine enslaved people during the 1790s, a period when Philadelphia briefly served as the nation’s capital. The removal was carried out in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order.

The city had collaborated with the federal government, historians, and private partners in the early 2000s to develop the exhibit as part of a long-running cooperation agreement governing the downtown historical park. Philadelphia contributed $1.5 million toward the exhibit’s creation.

City officials argued that the federal government was obligated to consult with Philadelphia before making any changes to the President’s House Site. Attorneys for the Justice Department countered that the administration holds sole authority over what stories are told at National Park Service properties.

In Thursday’s ruling, the appeals panel determined that the maintenance section of the agreement between the city and the federal government could not be read as a guarantee that the exhibit would stay unchanged indefinitely.

“The duty to ‘maintain’ is better understood as a general management obligation that accompanies ownership, not a promise that the exhibits will forever remain in place regardless of the owner’s wishes,” the court’s opinion stated.